SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（九）Flaw (part 1)

corrine90

Thank you, I got it. But I still confused about the concept of " logically correct". Does it mean the thing could happen?

sdcar2010

Logically correct simply means there is no flaw in logic to reach this statement. In CR, we do not care if the the statements is true or false in the REAL world. We only care if it is true or false in the LOGICAL world.

ff851223

请问NN,你写的这些有参考其他的书吗？谢谢

sdcar2010

No. Just my idiosyncratic way of thinking.

请问NN,你写的这些有参考其他的书吗？谢谢

-- by 会员 ff851223 (2011/9/28 11:15:15)

QUARTZ7

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 he support

Dear SDCAR2010, for this question, I originally wrongly choose B and E. After reading your analysis and discussion, I think C is the right answer, because it points out the logic flawness of the author. However, B and E are used to weaken the conclusion rather than criticize the logic structure. Is my understanding right?
Thank you very much!

QUARTZ7

Besides, as you teach us, B and E don't correlate each word of the passage. Right?

sdcar2010

B & E, both support part of the argument to gain more revenue by setting up high table to view celebrities.

QUARTZ7

B & E, both support part of the argument to gain more revenue by setting up high table to view celebrities.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/10/5 20:29:53)

Oh, yes~ I was careless. I still have a long way to go. Thank you!

lq0

妙！

gmatdc

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 he support

I really do not quite understand why the OA is C
My reasoning is this:
Background. However, premise, and intermediate conclusion because premise. Moreover, premise.
Therefore, premise, conclusion.

The author draws his conclusion based on two premise: one is the change will attract more people, and the other is people who seat at high tables will stay less time. That is, more people, higher fluidity.

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering

I do not understand the relation between what option c says and what the premises says.
If the exception to the generalization about lingering can constrain people to seat at high table, then i know the Option can really weaken the conclusion. But what is reaction of people who would choose to sit at a tall table is not mentioned in the conclusion. I thought this answers is a relevant one.

-- by 会员 jaze (2011/6/30 10:50:14)

Good analysis. This is a tricky question. The assumption that those who come to see celebrities and sit on the high stool would stay longer is never mentioned in the stimulus, but would be correct based on COMMON SENSE. It is a stretch, but still a reasonable stretch.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/30 18:54:27)

Dear sdcar2010,


I cansee why C is correct after reading your analysis. But can you point out why Dis incorrect please?
Myproblem is, if I read about the right answer I can make out why it is correct.But if I am to choose it on my own, I still think D is better than C sincethere is no stretch in getting at it. Isn’t D directly attacking the secondpremise where the arguer says that higher turnover will bring in higherprofits?
Thanks a lot