请教一道刚刚做的perp题，很难滴！

    At present the H restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent  the H, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, dinners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. There fore, if the H restaurant replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

    The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that ?

C.A customer of the H who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.

D.A restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer.

E.With enough tall tables to accomodate all the H's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables.

老实说，觉得这三个都点道理的， 不大想的通。

prep给的答案是c

顾客看明星想坐板凳+板凳顾客呆的时间短=〉改高桌板凳 =〉profit涨

C 坐高桌一般是例外，即想多呆会儿  直接反对前提2

D 时间短的比长的点菜便宜  （没说时间短的一定坐板凳，无关）

E如果所以想坐高桌的人都有座位，视野只剩下高桌子了 （无关，没说明星坐什么桌子阿，要是明星也做高桌岂不不影响？

确实有点绕，不过临场用无关排除应该可以 不能想太多

顾客看明星想坐板凳+板凳顾客呆的时间短=〉改高桌板凳 =〉profit涨

C 坐高桌一般是例外，即想多呆会儿  直接反对前提2

D 时间短的比长的点菜便宜  （没说时间短的一定坐板凳，无关）

E如果所以想坐高桌的人都有座位，视野只剩下高桌子了 （无关，没说明星坐什么桌子阿，要是明星也做高桌岂不不影响？

确实有点绕，不过临场用无关排除应该可以 不能想太多