扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2007E2-CR-17
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
some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
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
接下来的选项应该是讨论文章的逻辑漏洞，直接问你GAP是什么。
P——大家喜欢做高凳子看名人
P——大家再高凳子上不会多做逗留
C——引入高凳子会让饭店的收入增加
错误选项分析D——文章是有缺陷的，因为文章暗示——逗留的人比不逗留的的人花费更多。错误。我们可以用这个来攻击，但是文章本身没有这个意思，他总不可能自己攻击自己吧。如果原文改成——we have reasons to believe，就可以选这个
C——文章错误的认为做高凳子的人不会逗留，这个是文章当中的论据。不管这句话再暗示什么，内在逻辑是什么。首先这个格式就对了。比如A说因为B所以C，A是易受攻击的因为A认为B是对的。
C，lingering时间并不会更短。-->削弱。从根本上拔掉了结论的base，杀伤力最大。
D，lingering时间更短，消费更少。-->也是削弱。但隔了一层，同时，有其他角度可以抵消这个削弱：比如虽然单台消费率下降，但是翻台率提高，最后二者乘积是提高的。
E 的问题在于 和题干不符，题干只是说 replaced some of its seating，而你看E说了什么，再次G老头阴险
不选D的原因，a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer （花更少的钱和花更少的时间是你需要衡量的两个因素，都会对利润造成影响，你根本没法衡量是薄利多销的策略好呢，还是花更长的时间接待更少高消费的顾客带来的利润好，所以无法直接造成削弱。）
C是确实出现过而且确实是观点的
其他无关
而c选项指出的是这个hollywood的饭店不属于通常情况，攻击的仍然是推理链，大部分都是这种情况不等于你就是。而不选D的原因，a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer （花更少的钱和花更少的时间是你需要衡量的两个因素，都会对利润造成影响，你根本没法衡量是薄利多销的策略好呢，还是花更长的时间接待更少高消费的顾客带来的利润好，所以无法直接造成削弱。）
对比起来，” D-停留时间短的顾客会花更少的钱“，如果问题是XXvulnerable because this argument is established On which consumption 那这个选项就是对的
E-乍一看好像是对的，但是原文中提到只打算替换some table，错误
C 在Hollywood选高脚凳坐的客人会是例外（会停留更长的时间）”，正确
这道题tricky的地方在于问题的问法——文章论点是易受攻击的，因为文章认为……
接下来的选项应该是讨论文章的逻辑漏洞，直接问你GAP是什么。
所以应该是in the scope的错误，是店家考虑的错误，而不可能是他因削弱
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
c选项：「a customer of the Hollywood」 who would choose to sit at a tall table「 would be an exception to the generalization」 about lingering
【 generalization=typically】，说明customer of hollywood跟正常的不一样，他们坐高桌子就是为了看明星，怎么可能呆一会就走呢？这个不是反驳前提，只是说明这种特殊情况！
这明明一个削弱题。。登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
如果问哪个选项最大地削弱了推论，是D；但题干没有使人认为D是真的，D是对题干内容以外的因素进行推理作出的削弱。C，题干将人们在高桌上typically lingering longer的概念直接套用到好莱坞餐馆案例上，忽视了好莱坞餐馆的特殊性：人们过来是来看典礼的，你换了高桌，大家虽然为了更好的视野牺牲了坐的舒适性，但仍然会坚持到把典礼看完（不然不白来了嘛）。
如果下面的假设是错的，那自然可以说明结论错，所以选错的假设即可。
linger 磨蹭