PREP 17 牛牛们救命呀

呼啸700

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

(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（答案）

(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（我选的）

(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

呼啸700

对 对 知道了 谢谢你

呼啸700

哦 知道了  。。。我发现我可以跟你学写GMAT作文了

sdcar2010

Since this is a paradox question, the correct answer needs to point out where does the contravercy stem from. If you view D individually, it SUPPORTS the part of the argument where it says that TALLER stools will keep customers staying longer at the restaurant; but it also weakens the part of the argument where it says that the restaurant wants to increase the turnover rate. With D alone, we still do not know if the argument is weakened becasue D is a double-edged sword.

C on the other hand, points out the contraversy within the original argument like the Chinese Spear-and-Shield story.

cycyang

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.
目前H饭店只有标准高度的桌子。然而，很多顾客来这里看经常出入好莱坞的名人，他们更倾向于高一点的桌子(配有凳子)，因为这样可以有更好的视野。同时，通常坐在凳子上的用餐者不会停留太久（和做标准高度桌子的用餐者比）。
结论：如果H饭店将部分标准桌椅换成高一点的桌凳，将会有更多的利润。

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
在H饭店用餐的顾客会选择高一点的桌子这种情况只是一个例外。言外之意，通常大家还是会选择标准座椅的。因此，如果再增加高一点的桌椅，不会带来更多的利润。

(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
在餐厅用餐的顾客，如果他们吃饭的时间短，通常会点比较便宜的食物（和吃饭时间长的顾客相比）。因此，增加高一点的桌椅，用餐者的时间相对会缩短，他们的消费相对也较少。但是由于题干没有给出用餐者来的频率，无从推出利润的多少。（如果用餐者多，利润还是可能会增加的）。

呼啸700

D  我感觉说的 也挺对的呀  你说D哪里不好了呀

sdcar2010

The answer is C.

First of all, this is a paradox question and the question stem asks you to find the criticism.  So let's analyze the argument.

Premises:
1) Customers come to Hollywood Restaurant to watch the celebrities so customrs would prefer tall tables to get a better view.
2) Diners seated on stools typically stay a shorter time than diners on regular seats.

Conclusion:
If the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

Basically, the argument says that stools would attract more customers and customers sitting on stools turn over quickly.  Therefore, profits would be up.  Wait a minute.  Based on premise 1, if the customers are attracted to the restaraunt because they want to see celebrities, shouldn't they stay LONGER than normal customers? If so, it runs contrary to premise 2 which describes a general trend in customer's lingering behavior. The customer attracted might sit on the stools for a LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNG time without spending much on food. No turnover, no money!

C points out this paradox and C is the correct answer.