老Prep CR2 17，搞死掉了还没搞清楚...

ffen

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.

Question: 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 of the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables

一直以为这题是削弱的，翻了几个帖子发现好像是“论证错误”...
于是发现D是无关的，但是正确答案C到底如何理解内?
谢谢大家~~~

小傻瓜

这个题的问题是weaken么………………我以为是argument可以被weaken是因为他们认为了什么。。。

ffen

E是无关选项。原文只说replace some of its seating，然而，E说的是enough tall tables to accommodate all the customers...非常极端

纯斓梦

那为什么不选E呢，不要打我啊

ffen

恩，这个确实是weaken的一种，不过我感觉放在weaken里面我不是很能理解，看了SDCAR NN的帖子（http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_CR/thread-570678-1-1.html?SearchText=SDCAR2010%E3%80%90%E9%80%BB%E8%BE%91%E5%85%A5%E9%97%A8%E3%80%91），觉得可以归入flaw那里一块。下面这段解释也是这个帖子里面的。
还是感谢你的回答，给了我多一种思路找到答案！^^

Good question and good comments.

Looking closely, I would label No. 9 as a flaw question, whose flaw is that it contains a paradox, or conflicting premises.

Lingering here is a noun, not an adjective. So lingering means sojourn, tarriance, or plainly, stay.

What C) says is:
a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table (stay longer to view celebrities) would be an exception to the generalization about lingering (diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables).

As to stay longer to see the celebrities part, it is just common sense, albeit a tricky one.

C) does not attack premises. C) simply points out that both premises cannot be valid at the same time for the conclusion to hold. Individually, both premises are correct. But when you combine the two premises together, you cannot get the conclusion the argument tries to reach.

芸梦泽

我对于问题的理解是：一个对这个argument的批评基于以下哪一个理由进行反驳会使这个argument毫无争辩的余地。其实也就是WEAKEN题。

分析原文:由于1.顾客偏好高的桌椅，这样可以给看明星提供更好的视角
            2.坐高桌椅的顾客就餐的时间较短（也就是吃完了就走，不耗着，省的耽误饭店生意）
所以饭店得到结论：用高桌椅替换一些已有的桌椅可以提高饭店的收益
先预想一下答案：不是高的座椅也没有更好的视角甚至更差就是顾客就餐时间没有变化甚至更长

C选项：如果顾客选择做高的桌椅，那他就算是一般耗着不走，徘徊看明星的例外，也就是说因为他选择坐高的桌椅，他就可以逗留耗着了，还是影响生意，这就直接weaken了理由2
D选项实际上承认了理由，说就餐时间短的顾客一般点的餐也比较便宜，陷阱啊。。。因为有可能顾客点得餐便宜了但是架不住来就餐的顾客增加的多啊，所以没准收益就增加了，结论就是对的，这个weaken不强力，而且不是直接相关的，我感觉一般陷阱都是这样的

sanlingjie

题目说好莱坞餐厅现在都是标准高度的桌子。然而有很多顾客前来看那些名人，餐厅就觉得这些顾客会偏好高一点的桌椅，因为这样他们能看名人看得更清楚。并且，通常情况下坐高椅子的顾客会比坐标准高度椅子的客户待的时间短。于是得出结论说如果餐厅把它部分标准的桌椅换成较高的桌椅就会提升利润。答案C说那些会选择高桌椅的顾客只不过是普遍情况（普遍情况是坐标准桌椅的顾客逗留比较长，但是现在坐高桌椅的顾客成了一个例外了，所以他们也会逗留很长）的一个例外而已，也就是说其实他们虽然选择了高桌椅，但是他们还是会逗留，这就攻击了premise：Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

我是这么理解的。C选项的确比较难理解

ffen

那就再顶一下。。。。

ljwsophie12

同问同问