Prep07 CR2 第17题 Hollywood Restaurant 的解释

下面解释是我从一个国外网站上找来的，觉得比较有理，供大家参考：

原文题干应该是：It's more like "the argument is weak because it's likely / quite possible that..."

The OA, which is C, is just that: the 'generalization about lingering' is the idea that people won't sit at tall tables for as long as at short tables. Yet, according to the passage, the customers at tall tables will probably be there to gawk at celebrities, so they will probably stay for a long time - the 'exception' mentioned in this answer choice.

As for choice D, there is no mention of the cost of meals anywhere in the passage, so, nothing in the passage could possibly support any notion about differential meal prices. (In fact, strictly speaking, the passage doesn't even state that Hollywood Restaurant serves meals in the first place! For all we know, it's just a bar.)

这道题花了很久，终于弄明白，分享一下。

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

The statement is vulnerable to criticism in that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that:
(a) Some celebrities come to Hollywood restaurant to be seen and so might choose to sit at tall tables if they are available
(b) The price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at Hollywood restaurant compensates for longer time, if any, that they spend lingering over their meals
(c) A customer of the Hollywood restaurant who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generatlisation about lingering
(d) A restaurant's customer who spends less time at their meal typically orders less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(e) With enough tall tables to accommodate all Hollywood restaurant's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables

这个题的关键是要理解题干问的什么，The argument is vulnerable to the criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that，这个问法和普通的support和weaken的题目其实是不一样的，我们转译一下，应该是这样：The argument is vulnerable to the criticism because it assumes that，就是说，这个推论是错的，因为它有一个假设或前提是经不起推敲的，问这个假设是什么。所以答案应该是题目内含的一个假设，我们来看看题目假设了什么。

原题三句话，第一句，H餐厅现在只有标准高度的桌子，但是顾客喜欢坐带stool的高桌子，因为可以更好的看明星。第二句，喜欢坐stool的顾客通常吃饭时间短。第三句，所以H餐厅换一点带stool的高桌子可以挣更多钱。

第二句话就是一个假设，这句话假设喜欢坐stool的顾客吃饭时间短，这样桌子的利用次数就高，餐厅就越能挣钱。这句话其实还隐含了一个假设，就是吃饭时间短的顾客不会比其他人消费的更少，否则餐厅就算能多翻几次台，但是每次挣得少，还是不能多赚钱。

再看5个选项，A, B和E都不是原题里提到或暗藏的假设，原题的推论也不需要这些，C其实就是“喜欢坐stool的顾客通常吃饭时间短”的转述，直译就是：喜欢坐stool的顾客他们的吃饭耗时相对通常吃饭耗时来说是个例外（更长或更短都是例外，原题是假设更短）。D与原题隐含的假设正好相反。

说到底，还是考阅读，如果原题每个词连成句子的意思都弄懂了，这个题就不复杂。

下面解释是我从一个国外网站上找来的，觉得比较有理，供大家参考：

原文题干应该是：It's more like "the argument is weak because it's likely / quite possible that..."

The OA, which is C, is just that: the 'generalization about lingering' is the idea that people won't sit at tall tables for as long as at short tables. Yet, according to the passage, the customers at tall tables will probably be there to gawk at celebrities, so they will probably stay for a long time - the 'exception' mentioned in this answer choice.

As for choice D, there is no mention of the cost of meals anywhere in the passage, so, nothing in the passage could possibly support any notion about differential meal prices. (In fact, strictly speaking, the passage doesn't even state that Hollywood Restaurant serves meals in the first place! For all we know, it's just a bar.)