问一道prep的逻辑题，大家一起讨论下~

ReneeLChen

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
答案涂黑了，但是我不太理解，下面是我自己的注解，寻求众位帮扭转逻辑思路！
题设是问有了下面哪一个选项就是可以削弱了，所以这个题应该属于assumption和weaken的结合。原文说换成高桌子利润会增加。利润=sales-costs。这里说换成高桌子后吃的时间就变短了，那么如果人数还是那么多或者更多，sales就是增加的。现在要让这个结论成立就要让1）更换桌子的成本不便或者小于增加的sales；2）客流量不变或增加。A项说的是celebrities，无关，而且这里跟原文提供的事实相悖，原文说人们为了看明星才希望坐高桌子，这里却说明星就是要被看的所以会自己选择高桌子坐；B项相关，说名人点的贵所以吃得慢没关系，这是sales的部分，但是跟推论的逻辑链没多大关系，等于加了一个premise，但是不能从根本上削弱；C项说顾客选了高桌子就不会吃得慢，这个等于重复原文；D项说顾客吃得时间短那么点的也便宜，这等于说sales并不会大幅度增加，属于削弱；E项说满足了顾客对高桌子的需求就不会有剩余的空位了，这并不能说明实质问题。所以我选D，但是答案是C，请问我的逻辑哪里出现了错误？？

guoyilin2015

逻辑不在行，仅供参考吧。。

D 貌似expensive和profit不能直接挂钩。。价格贵也许成本也高，所以profit并不一定高
C 看名人-->坐高桌？-->流动快-->产量大-->利润高，这个削弱简直brutal，直接说坐高桌反而流动慢。。