prep17

suhuilin · 发表于 2009-3-31 21:14:00

17.
(26864-!-item-!-188;#058&003368)

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with

stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as

diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood 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

D/c

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available

(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals

(C) a customer of the Hollywood 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 accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables

此题思路?为什么不选D

hansomecd · 发表于 2009-3-31 22:14:00

结论：换高凳增加收入原因1：能看明星原因2：吃完就走

反驳：C exception to the generalization about lingering 就是吃完不走

D profits 跟价格无关，只跟差价有关

suhuilin · 发表于 2009-4-2 17:43:00

以下是引用hansomecd在2009-3-31 22:14:00的发言：

结论：换高凳增加收入原因1：能看明星原因2：吃完就走

反驳：C exception to the generalization about lingering 就是吃完不走

D profits 跟价格无关，只跟差价有关

为什么不能这样想：

原因2：吃完就走必定在饭馆花的时间就少，而刚好D说a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals （花费的时间少会使得点更少贵的食物），那么这样不正使profit降低了吗？

a58891012 · 发表于 2009-4-2 17:58:00

关于原因二:a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals 花费的时间少会使得点更少贵的食物但是没有说总的收入减少了存在这样的可能性是虽然点贵的少了但是点便宜的多了很多并且它们增加的profit能够cover 减少的点贵的菜的profit 所以点更少贵的并不能保证profit降低了

hansomecd · 发表于 2009-4-5 13:19:00

以下是引用suhuilin在2009-4-2 17:43:00的发言：

为什么不能这样想：

原因2：吃完就走必定在饭馆花的时间就少，而刚好D说a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals （花费的时间少会使得点更少贵的食物），那么这样不正使profit降低了吗？

再次指出，食物的贵贱跟profit没直接关系

退一步讲， less expensive 我可以吃大量的，不直接导致profit降低

jlsxmdgd · 发表于 2009-11-11 05:58:52

本人愚见，此题看似weaken，实为assumption或者infer题，如果请各位多读几遍题“The argument is vulnerable to criticism on thegrounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that” ，可以发现问题的重点在后段
it is likely that....所以应用infer题的思路，对选项取非带入原文，C选项说坐高凳的人应该被排除在逗留一类人之外，取非即成坐高凳的人也是逗留的人。而原文所要的是要赶这群逗留的人，而又说要设高凳吸引来看celebrities的人，而现在逗留的人与来看celebrities的人是同一类人了，该赶还是该留呢？所以推出了矛盾。想起来很复杂，建议是实战时，才一个与饭店的两个目的都相关的选项，感觉GMAT中给多余information的题很好(expect for some conclusion questions).

jlsxmdgd · 发表于 2009-11-11 06:01:40

本人愚见，此题看似weaken，实为assumption或者infer题，如果请各位多读几遍题“ The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that” ，可以发现问题的重点在后段
it is likely that....所以应用infer题的思路，对选项取非带入原文，C选项说坐高凳的人应该被排除在逗留一类人之外，取非即成坐高凳的人也是逗留的人。而原文所要的是要赶这群逗留的人，而又说要设高凳吸引来看 celebrities的人，而现在逗留的人与来看 celebrities 的人是同一类人了，该赶还是该留呢？所以推出了矛盾。想起来很复杂，建议是实战时，才一个与饭店的两个目的都相关的选项，感觉GMAT中给多余 information的题很好(expect for some conclusion questions).

zxfszyahoo · 发表于 2013-5-8 17:27:35

请教，这题是削弱题，还是加强题？题目都没看懂。有大侠解释一下吗？另外问下，PREP破解的答案，是官方给的，还是民间凑出来的？非常感谢

prep17

prep17

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()