PREP07 CR一题 牛人来解答啊

zlljolie

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

为什么答案选择C而不是D?

sdcar2010

The answer is C.

First of all, this is similar to a paradox question and the question stem asks you to find the criticism which points out the deficiency in the argument.  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!

C points out this paradox and C is the correct answer.

Since this is a paradox question, the correct answer needs to point out where does the controversy 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 controversy within the original argument like the Chinese Spear-and-Shield story.

sdcar2010

D is right itself. But D does not make the conclusion of the argument wrong. Thus, D alone cannot solve the paradox.

zlljolie

THANK YOU