GMATPrep里面的一道逻辑题，欢迎讨论

司香尉

以下是引用merben在2006-5-27 3:44:00的发言：

这个说的是翻台率.

用stool得人逗留的时间短,所以饭馆每晚接待的客人多,有可能赚钱多.

D.说的是消费额,也对,但超出了原题的范围内.

从这道题我学到的是,要紧扣主题.主题里只讨论lingering,没讨论price.

不明白啊，为什么逗留时间短就会接待的客人多，就会利润高？文章中也没有说啊。

关于“所以饭馆每晚接待的客人多,有可能赚钱多”和“D.说的是消费额,也对,但超出了原题的范围内.”这两个消费额有什么不一样？

 

司香尉

是不是关键是我问题没看懂，问题问的是The argument is vulnerable to the criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that文章基于相信了下面那个理由才会容易被批评？是要找出文中的推理错误。

所以文章从其实做高凳子的人并不比做标准桌子的人呆的时候少——推理到坐高凳子的人呆的时间短。这个推理是错误。

而D的内容，文章根本就没有推理。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-5-27 23:07:02编辑过]

promising

这个题目今天也碰上了,花了3分钟, 还是错了。 看了答案更迷糊.

有没有进一步解释.

洛拉

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

题目说：许多顾客到餐厅来看表演，他们通常会坐吧台因为吧台看表演的视野好。此外，选择吧台的顾客通常没有选择标准餐台的顾客逗留的时间长。因此，如果餐厅都换成吧台的话，利润会增加。要求找一个反对这个推理的理由

C. A customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.一个选择吧台的顾客成了关于逗留规律的例外，也就是说一个选择吧台顾客逗留时间比标准餐台顾客长

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.逗留时间短的顾客通常消费金额比逗留时间长的顾客少

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. 所有喜欢吧台的顾客都有足够的吧台位置坐，那么（顾客）除了能看见其他的吧台位置（顾客）外什么都看不见了

这道题D不一定，逗留时间短，可能翻台次数多，同样的位置上消费人次可能多，利润可能确实会增加，所以不一定能反对

C和E分别对应了段落中的2个前提，C对应“吧台顾客比标准餐台顾客逗留时间短”，但是C是用“一个顾客”去反对段落中的泛指或者many概念，我觉得有问题

E，对应“许多顾客来看演出，and 他们选择吧台，因为视野好”，E恰好反对说，如果所有想坐吧台都有地方（也就是把座位都改成吧台），那么视野就不好了，我认为恰好是反对结论的

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-6-12 19:25:55编辑过]

zimerman

还是很晕

lazyratcn

顶一下，顶一下，来个NN解释阿！！！

mbz

以下是引用lazyratcn在2006-12-8 1:52:00的发言：
顶一下，顶一下，来个NN解释阿！！！

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 the 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.

Please look at the words in red, do you get the feeling? The key is the way the question is presented. D is not related because you will not find any word to match it in the original context.

adpang

事后诸葛的说

如果C正确，那么题目难以理解的原因是大家对问题的解释不清，问题应该理解为，“这个argument对于提供了原因人大家认为....的批判最vulnerable.”就是在找一个最能批判原文的，也就是weaken的选项。”

如果上面正确，那么C就可以理解了。C提出了去好莱坞餐厅看名人的客户的行为习惯与generaliztiony一样。对应题干中的一个论据：“ diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables”这个论据是一个基于常理的判断。如果客户的习惯跟别人不一样，自然他的推理就不成立。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-12-8 12:36:01编辑过]

soniashi

同学们，声明我不是大牛，但是这道题我倒不是很迷糊。我的理解是：逻辑一定要紧扣题目，和题目无关或者题目没有说的条件，可以一概视为不成立或者无关。

题目是问：文章中隐含了什么条件使这一论断容易被人找出毛病。

题目开始就说：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. 就是说：做高台的人背来就是要看表演的，要欣赏节目的。后面又说：Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.是说：坐高台子的吃饭不一定就比坐矮台子吃饭时间长，换句话说：前一句是说明选高台对用餐人的影响，后一举说高台对吃饭时间的影响，既然人家都是来看表演的，当然可能吃的时间长拉。所以是C。不知道我这样说是不是大家明白一点？

我个人看法：如果题目问，什么条件加强这个论断？后面有一个选项说：餐厅有时候坐不满，邻居餐厅都没有高台子，可能就能更好的帮助大家了解题目含义了。

hollyball

1 d答案就算客人要得比较便宜，但是和利润没有关系，有可能便宜但是利润高

2 餐馆希望人们吃完早些走，这样可以有其他人来吃，不至于没有位子，影响了生意

3 c答案说的是这些人（喜欢看明星）虽然待的时间比较短，但是他们不具有代表性，很多人不喜欢明星的，坐了这样的桌子还是会吃的比较久