一道解释题，大家帮忙看看

When a new restaurant, Martin’s Cafe, opened in Riverville last year, many people predicted that business at the Wildflower Inn, Riverville’s only other restaurant, would suffer from the competition.  Surprisingly, however, in the year since Martin’s Cafe opened, the average number of meals per night served at the Wildflower Inn has increased significantly.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the increase?

1. Unlike the Wildflower Inn, Martin’s Cafe serves considerably more meals on weekends than it does on weekdays.
2. Most of the customers of Martin’s Cafe had never dined in Riverville before this restaurant opened, and on most days Martin’s Cafe attracts more customers than it can seat.
3. The profit per meal is higher, on average, for meals served at Martin’s Cafe than for those served at the Wildflower Inn.
4. The Wildflower Inn is not open on Sundays, and therefore Riverville residents who choose to dine out on that day must either eat at Martin’s Cafe or go to neighboring towns to eat.
5. A significant proportion of the staff at Martin’s Cafe are people who formerly worked at the Wildflower Inn and were hired away by the owner of Martin’s Cafe.

新开了一家m,和w是对手,本应该去w的人变少,结论是去w的人多了,要解释原因

我觉得c说m的利润高,是不是就说他的东西贵,所以去c的人少,反而去w的人多了

不知道理解的对不对

这种破案题也挺讨厌，开始我一个都选不出来。。。

选b,因为新餐馆吸引了很多以前不在这个地方吃饭的人，而且供不应求，那那些多出来的人懒得饿着肚子出城，于是就有可能跑到隔壁旧餐馆去吃，这不影响老餐馆原来的客户量，反而凭空增加了以前从来不来的客人。

大家讨论吧

有道理,我觉得最后一句才是关键,m  attracted more than it can seat,坐不下了,所以就去w了.我想想c好象错在加入了自己的理解,porfit高不一定是价格贵,还有可能是成本低,

美女厉害

二楼的这个说法——“选b,因为新餐馆吸引了很多以前不在这个地方吃饭的人，而且供不应求，那那些多出来的人懒得饿着肚子出城，于是就有可能跑到隔壁旧餐馆去吃，这不影响老餐馆原来的客户量，反而凭空增加了以前从来不来的客人。”

推理得太复杂了吧，似乎不符合“白痴原则”

我也可以解释得很简单：哎呀！坐不下了，我们去隔壁吃吧，以前还没去过呢！

这样够白痴了么？

支持3楼的解释.

如果逻辑存在白痴原则的话,那么白痴原则的内涵应该是:第一,不能加入新的信息.第二.推理跨步不能大,就是说在美国人的正常思维范围内.就是说从美国人看来,A意味着B.而不是推理不能太复杂,有些逻辑题的推理非常复杂.一串串的.

对于该题B,如果读不出两点内容(实际不存在推理),你就找不出答案:M餐馆吸引的是新顾客(没有抢老餐馆的顾客).经常人太多(就是说有多余的人可能到老餐馆去吃.)就是这两点,导致老餐馆顾客反而多

呵呵,那你也不能把美国人想的太白痴了