要哭了！！！！烦死了，看这道逻辑题，求NN解释，怎么看都是GMAC出题垃圾！

熊的传人

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 thatD C

(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
答案选C，但是我觉得B D E 都有正确的嫌疑， 整体的逻辑链就是说做的时间短，流动性高，利润就会增加，B说坐的时间长，但是可以用吃更高的价格来弥补时间长的损失。这不是很好的反驳吗？ D说 坐的时间越短，点的菜也月便宜，这不也是反驳吗？？ 难道GMAC想说点的菜越贵不能等价于利润越高？？？ E说，长椅子一多会挡住视线，顾客就少了，不也是很好的反驳吗？？？？ 这题是不是问题问反了啊！我去！求大牛解释！ 之前我还发了个帖子问12题的，到现在也没人可以解释清楚，NN有时间去搜下，就昨天晚上10点发的~ 连着几个题都感觉有问题。！