一道破解的逻辑，好纠结啊，求指点

wjk

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

答案：C
当时在c和d之间纠结，为什么不能选D？谢谢

Dongkailun

这是我引用了别人的。来源：http://forum.chasedream.com/archiver/GMAT_CR/thread-531427-1.html 个人认为这个解释才是正确的。generalization of lingering 并不是如上说的为了看明星逗留时间长。就是文段里说的坐高椅子的人比坐普通椅子的人时间呆的要短。也解决了我上面的小疑问。
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!

Dongkailun

恩~~但是我还是有个小疑问想请你帮忙解答一下。按照文段的说法，那些坐高桌子的人是有一个更好的视角去看明星，根本没提到逗留时间长短的问题。而且文段自己后面说了，Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. 坐高桌子的人没有比做普通桌子的人呆的时间长。这又如何解释他们坐高桌子是为了逗留的时间长点去看明星呢？
但是答案就是从源头上否定坐高桌子的人不是为了逗留时间长，而是有别的原因。求指导。

wjk

嗯嗯 我看明白了 谢谢！！

wjk

这个解释好，我看的很明白 哈哈 谢谢！！！

wjk

好详细 明白了 谢谢啊！

hldada

fact：1.many customer who want to see celebrities will prefer to table with     stools
        2.customer seated on stools will stay shorter
      (说明以上两个都是restaurant期望的)
conlusion: if restaurant should repace its nomal seats with table with stools
weaken: customer who want to see celebrities are an exception to the generalization of lingering  说明那些来看明星的人尽管选了table with stools 但是会stay longer, 违背了fact 2

至于D less expensive do not mean less profitable

不知道说的对不对

Alexandraross

其實意思就是說 － 那些坐在這個餐廳里高凳子的人，選擇高凳子得原因和上面關於（因為喜歡看明星而逗留在餐廳的）統一說法  不一樣，是一個exception.
暗含的意思： 他們坐高凳子可能因為，腿長啊，不喜歡矮凳子啊。所以如果是這樣的話，就完全推翻上面的argument.
Hope this helps.

塔罗牌

题目就没有谈及meals贵不贵的问题 你不能乱假设
利润=（收入-成本）* 人数
贵的餐 可能成本也高阿 导致赚不到什么钱

C从这个想法的源头否定了argument
等于说是argument从顾客喜欢来看名人的+顾客都爱坐高座得出他后面一系列的结论 就是说他之后的话都是BASE在此之上的
问题是有可能来的这个人坐高并不是为了看名人的阿 一个条件错了 那么它结论也错了

我也是瞎说的 大家多指教

wjk

没找到内容，你能把解释的内容复制给我看一下么 谢谢