急切求助一道prep!

lllmmm

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
这个题得问题我都看不懂  请教一下！！！！

littlexian

Oh Oh, we have just discussed this one yesterday. I forget which one.... sorry

littlexian

Found it, title [求助]问两条诡异的Prep逻辑题，破解版CR2-17,24

sdcar2010

The answer is C.

First of all, this is a paradox question and the question stem asks you to find the criticism.  So let's analyze the argument.

Premises:
1) Customers come to Hollywood Restaurant to watch the celebrities so customrs would prefer tall tables to get a better view.
2) Diners seated on stools typically stay a shorter time than diners on regular seats.

Conclusion:
If the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

Basically, the argument says that stools would attract more customers and customers sitting on stools turn over quickly.  Therefore, profits would be up.  Wait a minute.  Based on premise 1, if the customers are attracted to the restaraunt because they want to see celebrities, shouldn't they stay LONGER than normal customers? If so, it runs contrary to premise 2 which describes a general trend in customer's lingering behavior. The customer attracted might sit on the stools for a LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNG time without spending much on food. No turnover, no money!

Since this is a paradox question, the correct answer needs to point out where does the contraversy stem from. If you view D individually, it SUPPORTS the part of the argument where it says that TALLER stools will keep customers staying longer at the restaurant; but it also weakens the part of the argument where it says that the restaurant wants to increase the turnover rate. With D alone, we still do not know if the argument is weakened becasue D is a double-edged sword.

C on the other hand, points out the contraversy within the original argument like the Chinese Spear-and-Shield story.

lllmmm

哇，谢谢二楼了，你是GMAT专家吧

littlexian

哇，谢谢二楼了，你是GMAT专家吧

-- by 会员 lllmmm (2011/4/3 8:55:31)

What? No,no, I just remember I saw the same quesiton yesterday. GMAT专家 is your ls~

powers

The answer is C.

First of all, this is a paradox question and the question stem asks you to find the criticism.  So let's analyze the argument.

Premises:
1) Customers come to Hollywood Restaurant to watch the celebrities so customrs would prefer tall tables to get a better view.
2) Diners seated on stools typically stay a shorter time than diners on regular seats.

Conclusion:
If the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

Basically, the argument says that stools would attract more customers and customers sitting on stools turn over quickly.  Therefore, profits would be up.  Wait a minute.  Based on premise 1, if the customers are attracted to the restaraunt because they want to see celebrities, shouldn't they stay LONGER than normal customers? If so, it runs contrary to premise 2 which describes a general trend in customer's lingering behavior. The customer attracted might sit on the stools for a LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNG time without spending much on food. No turnover, no money!

Since this is a paradox question, the correct answer needs to point out where does the contraversy stem from. If you view D individually, it SUPPORTS the part of the argument where it says that TALLER stools will keep customers staying longer at the restaurant; but it also weakens the part of the argument where it says that the restaurant wants to increase the turnover rate. With D alone, we still do not know if the argument is weakened becasue D is a double-edged sword.

C on the other hand, points out the contraversy within the original argument like the Chinese Spear-and-Shield story.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/4/2 22:09:57)

调理很清晰!佩服!

lllmmm

不好意思  我说的GMAT专家是三楼