Prep2-17

нандин

为了看名人的人与那些人理论上待着时间短 的不一样，是个例外。只能这样理解就有道理了

东西方隐

1. first of all, what the question asked is about to strengthen the argument. Don't confused by "criticism".

2. Another culture concept we have to address here is: most of customers in US who choose the stools are lingers, who usually just buy a cup of drinks compared to diners.

3. C choice is trying to distinguish between the customer in Hollywood and the general patrons.

weideng

这道题目看懂问题在问什么是关键.

yzhao26

i don't know yet

yzhao26

up

rattledrum

以下是引用东西方隐在2007-12-31 8:54:00的发言：

1. first of all, what the question asked is about to strengthen the argument. Don't confused by "criticism".

2. Another culture concept we have to address here is: most of customers in US who choose the stools are lingers, who usually just buy a cup of drinks compared to diners.

3. C choice is trying to distinguish between the customer in Hollywood and the general patrons.

不是支持，是找weaken！

waterlooer

    

等级：论坛游侠

文章：42

精华：0

积分：421

门派：无门无派

注册：2008年1月24日

第 2 楼

 
            
            
            
            
            
        

---

我的想法是：

前提：高座椅能方便客户看明星（吸引客户），另外，就餐顾客使用高座椅时间少（提高流动率）。
结论：替换成高座椅（吸引就餐顾客、提高流动率）利润上升。

削弱方法：割断因果（有果无因），即：因（替换成高座椅吸引就餐顾客）本身不成立。

C选项说：选择高座椅的客户不是准备（逗留 lingering）用餐的客户，即：高座椅吸引的客户非就餐顾客，即利润来源。

请大家拍砖。

2008-8-10 14:02:00

举报帖子
                    

            

jonathan1987

顶

yunerfeifei

明白了,谢了啊

zhuceg

有意思的问法， 感觉Prep2的逻辑题有点和1里面的不一样。

试着翻译了一下这题的问题：
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

由于下面的哪个可能让这个论断容易受到攻击（批评）- 就是找削弱项

laofan3000

我觉得是找一个让原推论成立的支持项

而这个支持的项让这个推论vulnerable to criticism