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 table

It should be C? What about A and D?

这题我也错了，把几个nn得解释贴上来，楼主也可以搜索一下，以前有讨论

文章说：做高脚桌的人做的时间没有座标准桌的人的时间长，就认为都换成高脚的，能增加流动性，增加收入

但是问题在于，座高脚凳看热闹的人时不时和真正坐在标准桌上安心吃饭的人是一类人，能花足够多的钱来点东西吃的人呢？

如果不是，换完高脚凳，都是看热闹的，没有一门心思吃饭的人了，怎么能使得profit增加呢？

C is the answer。C说他们不是那些在餐厅吃饭呆着不走的人

D价格低不代表profit低

答案D说了“a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals ”，但这个customer并不等于选择高桌子的customer，所以是错的