国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA

标题: 对解析的一道题存在疑问，麻烦你看看 [打印本页]

作者: shenyelaile 时间: 2011-8-8 06:56 标题: 对解析的一道题存在疑问，麻烦你看看

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

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

E选项为我最初的选择，C为正确答案。

认真看了你的解析，感觉受益匪浅，但是有发现你把这个题作为一个paradox题型，表示不解。原因如下：

1、问题所问是本题的关键。

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
那么答案我想一定要满足2个条件：
（1）指出原文的一个flaw(is vulnerable to criticism ) ; ---从这个方向来看，本题有点像FLAW或者驳斥题型
(2)能根据原文的前提推出来（it gives reason to believe that it is likely that）---这个方向来看，有点像MUST BE TRUE

2、因此分析各个选项之后，可以发现只有CE可以根据原文推出来。D不行，原文压根没有说价格之类的东西，这个选项说的是新信息，无法根据原文推理出来。在你的解析中，你认为是因为本题是paradox，我觉得有点不妥。

另外：C选项毫无疑问满足问题的两个条件，是正确的选项。但是E选项，错在哪里呢？百思不得其解。我的看法是，E选项论述表明第一个前提是错误的，因此可以为正确答案。

呵呵，写的有点多，麻烦你看看，谢谢！

作者: gmat740740 时间: 2011-8-8 19:43

This is a flaw question. I mentioned paradox here as the type of flaw commited by the author and as the kind of reason one can use to shed unfavorable light on the conclusion.

E) is not the correct answer because E) cannot weaken the conclusion. Attacking the premise is not allowed in GMAT CR questions. Plus, E) simply states an possible inference, which does not contradict anything from the stimulus.

作者: shenyelaile 时间: 2011-8-9 06:35

E选项，因为满足了客人的VIEW需求后，就没有VIEW除非有其他的高桌子。这说明第一个前提所说的提供好的VIEW是站不住脚的。这个可以驳斥嘛

Attacking the prememis is not allowed in GMAT CR questions，C选项不也正是驳斥的第二个前提吗？

作者: gmat740740 时间: 2011-8-10 06:31

C) does not attack premises. C) simply points out that both premises cannot be valid at the same time for the conclusion to hold. Individually, both premises are correct. But when you combine the two premises together, you cannot get the conclusion the argument tries to reach.

E) is simply an inference of the the first premise. Only stool sitters can get a better view of the celebrities.

作者: gmatvictors 时间: 2011-8-11 20:07

Hey sdcar, what about D? I chose D at a first sight, however, I noticed that maybe D was out of the table-profit scope?
In my own classification, I regard these kind of Qs as support-paradox. For example, in prep 2007 CR-2 question No.4 & No.5 are of the same type.

作者: gmatvictors 时间: 2011-8-11 20:07

by saying support-paradox, I mean that the conclusion of this argument should be "Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of itsseating with high tables and stools, its profits would NOT increase."

作者: gmat740740 时间: 2011-8-12 06:34

Based on the question prompt "The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds . . .", this is a flaw question. That said, it can solved used stragetgies of weaken or paradox.

The conclusion should if the tables are changed to high table and stools, the increase in sales is unknown.

欢迎光临国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)