求助：很难，一道逻辑机经，先谢各位牛牛了

shouyang12

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.  

conquergmat

choose E

入画

D?

Since customers will spend less, the profit of the retaurant will decress.

shanexin

from gmatprep, the answer is C

lawyer_1

prefer to C. Basically, D might be the answer. However, it involves the problem of price, wheras the conlcusion of the stimulus involves the issue of profits.

jandjshi

I understand the logic mistake of answer D. Expensive meals don't necessarily translate to high profits. However, I think that the same logic mistake can be said to C. The duration of a diner's stay doesn't necessarily correlate with profits. On the other hand, answer E undermines the original argument that utilizing tall stools to attract opportunistic customers at this particular restaurant can increase the profit.

In addition, the question is "the argument gives reason to believe that it is likely that…” I don’t sense that the stimulus gives any clue to make answer C believable, whereas answer E is within reach.   

请lawyer NN看看我的思路错在哪里?

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-4-13 10:16:47编辑过]

入画

Who can translate the C ?

3x

lawyer_1

该题关键理解C的意思：来好莱坞餐馆的选择坐高凳子的顾客没有遵循关于逗留的一般说法（generalization about lingering）。generalization about lingering指的是diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables。即如果换成原文说的凳子，则客人逗留时间会长。怀疑原文两个前提中的一个(即认为逗留时间会短)。

原文只是说换掉some,换完后是否有enough的高凳子不知道，所以E无关。

二狼神

支持C.

D是混淆项.

jandjshi

恩, 睡一觉清醒了好多, 再看这题好像就比较清楚了. Lawyer说的some和enough的scope shift有道理. 谢谢lawyer大N.

还有, 昨晚认为原文没有gives reason to believe第二个前提的exception. 现在再看, 的确有. 原文两个前提中的第一个前提就给了reasons to believe 第二个前提的exception. 因为Hollywood的customer座高登是为了spot celebrities的, 所以generalization about lingering在Hollywood可能就不管用了. 第一个前提的确给了个reasonable doubt.