ｐｒｅｐ逻辑请教
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
请问这题为什么选择ｃ呢？感觉ｅ好像也是对的。。。
谢谢 作者: zongzeng90 时间: 2010-4-20 21:24
My choice is D; but the official answer is C.
E is, in my opinion, a bit out of scope.
C is possible. The stimulus gives a generalisation of how the new seating affects customers' behaviour. C describes a particular case; thus it is possible that the two cases are both true. C also assumes that a better view of celebrities would cause the customer to linger longer.
The problem with D is that the relationship between the length of lingering and the amount of money spent on a meal is not mentioned in the stimulus. However, the stem requires that the correct answer be able to be inferred from the stimulus.作者: wahabirds 时间: 2010-4-21 06:52
可是。。
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
First, "the generalisation about lingering" refers to the situation that the new seating (high tables with stools) will shorten the lingering time, thereby maybe increasing a restaurant's turnover. In the examiner's words, that is, "diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables."
Your problem seems to be caused by your lack of understanding of the above quote. The use of "diners" and "typically" points to a generalisation; ie, the examiner is not talking about this or that particular restaurant but restaurants in general. Thus, to say the Hollywood Restaurant is an exception to this generalisation is to say that in this particular restaurant, such seating either keeps the original lingering time constant or lengthens it.
In addition, you seems to be confused by the name, "the Hollywood Restaurant". This is the name of a particular restaurant, because its initials are capitalised.
Why C is correct? Its inner working seems to be that a better view will make customers stay there longer, though it helps attracts them.
Have to say it's a tricky one.作者: wahabirds 时间: 2010-4-23 06:38
讲解的太详细了。。感谢
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)
