- UID
- 248079
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2007-6-17
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
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 (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
这道削弱题答案是C,我明白它的意思,是直接说其中的一个前提不成立,但是我想问下D为什么不对呢?如果是D的话,因为每顿饭花费的钱少了(虽然换台快了,吃的人多了),所以profit有可能增加,有可能减少,有可能不变,但是削弱题只要使答案有不成立的可能就可以了呀,所以如果每顿饭花钱少了的话,profit是不一定增加的,这样不算削弱了答案了吗?还是说选项C和D都是对的,但是C更直接,所以选C,不选D呢? 望NN指点迷津,谢谢 |
|