pp的一道题目，求高手解答，重谢

jackychen26

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

答案c的意思不是不逗留的意思，为什么是正确选项？求解

sdcar2010

Lingering here is a noun, not an adjective. So lingering means sojourn, tarriance, or plainly, stay.

What C) says is:
a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table (stay longer to view celebrities) would be an exception to the generalization about lingering (diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables).

As to stay longer to see the celebrities part, it is just common sense, albeit a tricky one.

C) does not attack premises. C) simply points out that both premises cannot be valid at the same time for the conclusion to hold. Individually, both premises are correct. But when you combine the two premises together, you cannot get the conclusion the argument tries to reach.

sdcar2010

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.

edmondxie

Agree to sdcar2010

另外我是这么下手的，看问题。你看这个问题问的很诡异，说本题目题设中可以退出什么来反驳本题的观点。。。。。。

如前所说两个题设，1看名人 2吃的快翻台子，所以因为1，2，这么搞肯定赚大发了

于是，你把题设反过来（否定题设），然后排列组合一下，就有以下可能：
1如果来个鸟人，只吃不看，那么餐馆应该还是赚钱，翻台子啊
2如果来个鸟人，只看不吃，那么餐馆就翻不了台子，餐馆就难赚钱
3如果来个鸟人，不吃也不看，我觉得这个人可以去撞墙了，因为没必要来这个餐馆，多余。。。。。

所以，只有2能够达到从题设推个东西否定本题。1无法否定，3不存在这样想撞墙的人

sdcar2010

LS, good job in translating this problem in simple Chinese.

jackychen26

你的分析厉害，但考场有限时间不一定想这么多

jackychen26

看来是我没把问题理解透

AlohaDJ

体会所得：由两个或多个premises推出一个conclusion,留意这些premises内部矛盾，正是这些"自相矛盾"是最好的weaken方法。

邦得

我觉得二楼说的很好 但是很多人可能有些地方还是有点难理解
我自己的一些领悟  欢迎大家探讨
其实我觉得这道题之所以难  是因为有些句子比较难理解
这道题的提问很关键：The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
这里的it指代的是argument，即问作者的推断过程有理由使我们相信很有可能咋样，而这个“咋样”会成为批评者的理由来反对作者的逻辑推理
（即我们要找作者推理的自相矛盾的地方）
作者的推断二楼说了
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.

A,B 选项都是讲名人咋样  文章中根据premise与conclusion是推不出来的
C选项讲顾客坐长凳可能做的时间长  与generalization相反，这一点我们promise1 是可以推出因为要看明星
D选项不仅从argument推不出来  而还与之相反
E选项也推不出

个人感觉有点infer题得意思在里面
逻辑题的提问和结论都很重要！修饰语 结构多留神

vickizhq

分享一下教训，读完题印象最深的是三件事，profits would increase，vulnerable to criticism，题目只说了翻台时间快没说每一台的利润。提到餐饮的profits怎么能只说流量（翻台快就是流量大咯）不说单位收入呢，没有收入谈什么profits？所以很自然的就去答案里面找跟金额相关的，看到只有d选项说用餐时间短的点东西也便宜就选了，一看答案懵逼了。。。
看了楼上的分析发现问题都没读懂。这个问题其实给了一个限制就是只能从题目的两个推理前提出发（这里就表示不用琢磨收入了，当然了d也不对，说expensive跟profit也没关系）
非常感谢