[求助]做pp2时候的一题，实在是想不明白了~~~

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

(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

他问问题的这句话：The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that 到底怎么理解啊？？

谢谢各位了~

指的是文章的观点基于什么样的错误假设

楼主这道题是选择点三个吗？

的确是第三个 不过我想不明白 能不能解释一下啊

虽然题目得出的结论可能是错误的,但此题的目的就是让你找出这种支持结论的假设，即可以支持得出饭店赢利这一结论的假设，很明显就是C了。C认为坐高凳子的人是不会逗留的，也就是翻台率会高，最终饭店赢利。其他几项多从不同方面论证饭店是不会赢利的，或是无关选项。

大概明白是什么意思了~主要是题目没看懂~