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
这句话的意思是：“因为the argument gives reasons to believe下面哪一项，所以导致这个argument非常vulnerable？”这句话提示我们：the argument本身是有问题，有逻辑漏洞的！C选项正提出了这个逻辑漏洞：大家既然坐高凳子是为看名人，怎么会坐坐就走呢？而原文说高凳子让人坐时间不长，明显就是逻辑上的悖论！D选项之所以被排除是因为它引入了新内容:“less expensive meals”, 原文的argument根本就没提meal price类的内容，又怎么可能是由原文argument导致的逻辑漏洞呢？
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。）
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论