旧prep逻辑第11题，需要大家智慧与点拨！！

yvonnechen88

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


1，这个题其实是weaken类型的对吗？？
2，为什么选C？题目中只说了有些顾客为了看见名流就偏好高桌子，并且这些坐高桌的顾客在餐馆逗留的时间没有坐普通桌的顾客停留的时间长，就推出餐馆替换一些高桌子可以增加营业额这个结论。这里面是否有个隐含的前提就是说客人停留时间短，就可以有更多的客人来，消费就会增加，利润就会上升？所以weaken的时候就说这种选择坐高桌的客人在逗留时间方面是个例外，客人们坐了高桌一般会逗留时间更久，使得想消费的其他客人没有地方坐，营业额不会上升？？可是如果选择高桌的客人即使逗留时间久，消费也上升的话不是也能增加收入吗？？
晕死了。。。。求高人点拨！！

yvonnechen88

。。。。。。大家帮帮忙吧。。。。我困惑的很厉害啊。。。。。

iceberg07

谈一下我的浅见。这个题是让指出逻辑错误的题型。原题说现在Hollywood餐馆都是标准高度的桌子，但是很多顾客为了看名流倾向于坐高凳子，同时坐高凳子不会跟普通凳子一样坐的太久，于是得出结论如果换桌椅，利润会上升。这个逻辑错误就是作者认为坐高凳子的顾客不会停留太久。大概就是这个意思，翻译得不是很好，见谅。

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


1，这个题其实是weaken类型的对吗？？
2，为什么选C？题目中只说了有些顾客为了看见名流就偏好高桌子，并且这些坐高桌的顾客在餐馆逗留的时间没有坐普通桌的顾客停留的时间长，就推出餐馆替换一些高桌子可以增加营业额这个结论。这里面是否有个隐含的前提就是说客人停留时间短，就可以有更多的客人来，消费就会增加，利润就会上升？所以weaken的时候就说这种选择坐高桌的客人在逗留时间方面是个例外，客人们坐了高桌一般会逗留时间更久，使得想消费的其他客人没有地方坐，营业额不会上升？？可是如果选择高桌的客人即使逗留时间久，消费也上升的话不是也能增加收入吗？？
晕死了。。。。求高人点拨！！

-- by 会员 yvonnechen88 (2010/4/22 20:37:30)

iceberg07

还想说的一点是，即使做削弱题时，不要想太多，只要能起到削弱作用的就是答案。不用管其合理性，要不很容易陷入死胡同。