- UID
- 728736
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-28
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
This is a flaw question rather than a weaken question.
The main difference between flaw and weakening questions is in the types of answers that we see. For flaw, the answers are general statements about the logic of the argument, one of which accurately characterizes the problem; for weakening, the answers are true facts about the world, one of which makes us doubt that the conclusion is true.
Therefore answer D gives us a weakening reason while answer C clearly tells us a logical flaw of the argument. Here we go the logic:
The argument assumes 1. most of customers in Hollywood would be celebrity watcher 2. Tall table sitters would not be stay for long What's wrong with these assumptions? There is some flaw here...Since these tall table customers are mainly here for watching celebrities, they are not typical stool sitters... they will follow whenever they need to stick with celebrities they are watching....so they might stay much longer than normal typical stool sitters.
And this is the flaw of the logic!
so Answer C pointed out the flaw: a customer of the hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
while answer D is a normal weakening option.....but again, this is not really a weakening question.
To be honest this is a very tough one, when you see this question, you should celebrate, because that means you are hitting the top top tier of the gmat takers....
And, if you meet these flaw questions again, please just treat them as weakening question, this is a exception to the generalization about FLAW question, which contains both flaw option and weakening option....
way too tricky.
99% of the flaw questions, treat them as weakening one
hope this explantion helps.... |
|