Prep CR 2_No.17

victorhang

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

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

 

我选的是D,因为题干中说diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables,所以按照D的说法通常吃饭时间更短的人点的菜都会更便宜些,自然就无法达到更换更多高桌子和凳子所想要的increase profit的目的了啊.请各位NN赐教;)

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-2-12 21:43:59编辑过]

haiyin202

这题题目是怎么个意思呢？我也作错了。期待大伙指教~~

victorhang

题干中是要找 which one is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe ...呵呵,要选不相关的.谢谢CD其他朋友的帮助,ls的同学也可以看看;)

haiyin202

这道题没人帮忙给解释吗？

kpbest

有人问过的，http://bbs..org/dispbbs.asp?boardid=40&id=117725

我也不怎么懂 ，奇怪，这个的链接怎么粘贴后变了样呢，楼主百度一下

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-2-16 17:28:26编辑过]

ashura

已知：1）H饭店没有高桌子（/凳子）。2）以为很多人在H饭店吃饭都是为了看名人的，所以为了能有良好的视角，他们都喜欢高桌子。
3）吃饭的客人如果坐在高凳子上，他们平均就座的时间比坐在一般高度的桌子上的客人要短。
结论：如果H饭店把一些一般高度的桌子换成高桌子，那么饭店就能提高利润。

问：这个推理过程有个漏洞：它不正确的推论——

C 在H饭店选择高桌子吃饭的客人，他们的停留时间是在H饭店吃饭的客人的通常停留时间的例外。
换句话说，在H饭店选择高桌子吃饭的客人通常不会象在H饭店吃饭的一般的客人那样停留很常时间。

但是在H饭店选择高桌子吃饭的客人并不一定象一般饭店那样停留的时间相对较短。他们为了等着看名人，很可能停留的时间比在一般高度的桌子上吃饭的客人还要长。

推理错误地用一个一般性的概念在一个特殊的场合。所以应该选C。

D 在饭店里选择在高桌子吃饭的客人的客人，通常会点较便宜的饭菜。
这个选项是个非常合理的Weaken选项。但是问题不是问的是：‘那个选项weaken了结论’,而是问得是：‘The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument gives reason to believe that it is likely that’--”推理的漏洞是什么。。。“。所以不能选这个选项。

mustard12

D 并不是合理的weaken, 因为便宜的菜 与价高的菜相比,probit未必低, 尽管这是通常的情况,但是还需进一步的推理

Vemma

嗯，看清楚题目还是最重要的

这个题目不是weaken结论，而是weaken reasoning

mickeychen

vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that .....

这种问法太狡猾了，让人防不胜防啊。难道这是GMAT逻辑题的新动向？

ad264

还有一个小地方！

C a customer of the Hollywood: Hollywood餐厅的顾客→specific

D a restaurant's customers: 任何一家餐厅的顾客→也是犯了generalization