prep-2-17

eleanor613

17.   (26864-!-item-!-188;#058&003368)

 

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C 但我觉得E也是削弱

 如果看不到celebrity了 那和没改前没区别阿... 装修费白花

lawyer_1

1.理解E的意思就明白E无关: 有足够的TALL TABLES给感兴趣的顾客,除TALL TABLES有VIEW外外,坐在其他类型座位的顾客就没有VIEW啦.

其它座位的情况和原文推理无关.不要将原文的EXCEPT丢了.

2.C关键在于理解GENERALIZATION指的是什么: 它其实指原文这句话diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables

eleanor613

   E 为什么错了呢？？？？？？？？

platobungee

以下是引用eleanor613在2007-8-28 8:59:00的发言：

17.   (26864-!-item-!-188;#058&003368)

 

 

 

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C 但我觉得E也是削弱

 如果看不到celebrity了 那和没改前没区别阿... 装修费白花

E确实是个迷惑选项，实战时就不用考虑那么多了，直接选C就行了，C是明显削弱的。

题目的整体逻辑是: place some tall table -> less lingering（更短的逗留时间）-> increase profit

C直接把逻辑链的中间打断了，就是说less lingering不成立，所以C对

E: too many tall table -> no view  其实是无关项，既不加强也不削弱。为什么你会觉得它削弱呢？原因是因为你在无意识中加入了你自己的逻辑，使E的逻辑链变成了 too many tall table -> no view
  -> fewer custom -> not increase profit

记住，一定不要加入自己的逻辑，根据原文我们其实不能得到no view -> fewer custom的, 不信我们来试试，原文说tall table can get a better view -> custom prefer tall table （注意原文并没有说more tall tables -> more customs，只是在坐在tall table上的人的逗留时间上做文章，所以从这一点我们只能得出隐含推理more tall tables -> more customs prefer to sit on tall table(客户总数不变也可以) -> less lingering ）

整个逻辑很复杂，就连我上面做的推理都有许多漏洞，所以GMAC出的题目有的时候也不可能能做到题目的每个细节都那么严谨的，有时候也是5个选项都有漏洞，但是我们不需要太钻牛角尖，心里明白GMAC到底想让你选哪个就可以（按照GMAC的套路来）。这只是一个测试能力的考试（还不很准），需要你在1分40秒的时间内做出的推理肯定是不用拐太多弯的哦，你只需要按题目的逻辑线来就可以了。

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-8-31 18:11:58编辑过]

冰峰溪谷LQ

这题题干我就不懂    哪位NN  能给翻译下

算是WEAKEN题目   那D 为什么不可以啊？

chasedreamho

拜下Lawyer大神，大神08年还在啊

酒精灯

阴险的，披着weaken外衣的flaw题。。。

bendrift

偶也是看了很久没有明白：
求教：
1。提干的解读：
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
这个陈述很容易收到批评，（that是不是argument的同位语啊？）它给出的理由并相信：很有可能.......?
(真的翻译不来啊！！！！)

C.a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
一个将会选择坐在tall table的客户会是一个一般情况下（关于lingering）的例外。
原文中有做个这个假设么？什么是一般情况啊？
晕了！谢谢！

Hendy

"The main difference between flaw and weakening questions is in the types of answers that we see. For flaw, the answers are general statements about the logic of the argument, one of which accurately characterizes the problem; for weakening, the answers are true facts about the world, one of which makes us doubt that the conclusion is true"

Hendy

and D:

Quote:
a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
Does the argument itself give us reason to believe that D is true? Definitely not, since there's no mention of anything related to D. So, D can't be the right answer to this question.

However, if the question had been:

Quote:
Which of the following, if true, weakens the argument above?
then D would have been correct.

A common trap on the GMAT is the "right answer to the wrong question", which is why it's vital to ensure that you understand the question stem (and predicting the answer) before going on to the choices.