SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（九）Flaw (part 1)

sdcar2010

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

-- by 会员 gmatdc (2011/10/19 5:59:42)

Less expensive meal does not equal less profit.

gmatdc

Thanks! I was thinking so hard to try to wrap my head around this yet still failed to figure it out... Loved your posts and thanks again!

bonfin

up

月照琳琅

Thx again.

Ellen影子

as someone analysis
Laura's reasoning
provable --> not (either lying or mistakenly)
that is
A -> B
Laura's reasoning is   not A  --> not B

why notA--> not B

i don't understand those options
(C) It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.




thank  u!

sdcar2010

as someone analysis
Laura's reasoning
provable --> not (either lying or mistakenly)
that is
A -> B
Laura's reasoning is   not A  --> not B

why notA--> not B

i don't understand those options
(C) It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow for something that ensures that the conclusion follows.




thank  u!

-- by 会员 Ellen影子 (2011/11/19 22:03:17)

The original post had some typos. The following would be a better explanation:

Laura's premise is that the theory is provable. The fact that the theory is provable is necessary for the conclusion that Fermat has indeed proved the theory before his death. But this fact alone does not conclusively prove or sufficiently points out that Fermat has proved it. In other words, this fact alone is not a sufficient condition for the conclusion that Fermat has indeed proved the theory.

C points out this error in Laura's argument.

In terms of logic chain:

Joseph: Theory not provable --> Fermat might be lying or mistaken. Contrapositive: Fermat might not be lying or mistaken --> Theory provable

Laura: Theory provable --> Fermat was not lying or mistaken

Ellen影子

thank U  soooooooooooooooooo much！
i got it!!!!!!!!!

情未浓

can you give an exemple for "4. Attacking a weaker argument instead of the main conclusion",please.
I just don't understand what this situation is.

lpbird

你的头像总是很靓啊

yjiang23

Hello, SDCAR2010. Thx for the posts. They are really helpful.
There is one thing I got so confused "Negating both conditions without switching them. Switching both conditions without negating them"

Can you please give a specific example regards these two concepts? I do read your example, it seems like "a matching question" to me. If A does, B does. If A does not, B does not.