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
理解了该题的逻辑思路，但是不太理解的是这个题目的削弱 为什么是直接否定 已知前提 diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables ？ 不是题目给出的前提就是fact，削弱时是不能否定前提的嘛？
求老师同学解惑。谢谢。
确实有这个问题，如果这个题要是以对话的形式出现会更好些。不过看问题的问法，已经暗示你要攻击前提了，it gives the reason ..
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论