我已经把能找的关于这道题的帖子都看过了，可还是没完全懂：
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 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 hollywood to be seen , 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 accomodate all the Hollywoods customers interested in such seating , there would be no view except of other tall tables
题干的关键在diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners at standard height tables。坐在高凳子上用餐的时间比一般的要短。所以得出结论，要多增加高凳子来增加利润。C就说，选择高凳子的人用餐时间和一般的比是个例外。
我的问题就来了，这个“例外”也没说是更长还是更短，如果说是更长，也就是高凳子的人用餐时间更长，那么很好理解，客流量减少，利润降低，削弱。
我做这道题的时候上来就先排除了c，认为这是反对前提（Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners at standard height tables.）的典型错误。但是事实上，我这样排除法是不恰当的。
This is a flaw question rather than a weaken question.
The main difference between flaw and weakening questions is in the types of answers that we see. For flaw, the answers are general statements about the logic of the argument, one of which accurately characterizes the problem; for weakening, the answers are true facts about the world, one of which makes us doubt that the conclusion is true.
Therefore answer D gives us a weakening reason while answer C clearly tells us a logical flaw of the argument. Here we go the logic:
The argument assumes 1. most of customers in Hollywood would be celebrity watcher 2. Tall table sitters would not be stay for long
What's wrong with these assumptions? There is some flaw here...Since these tall table customers are mainly here for watching celebrities, they are not typical stool sitters... they will follow whenever they need to stick with celebrities they are watching....so they might stay much longer than normal typical stool sitters.
And this is the flaw of the logic!
so Answer C pointed out the flaw: a customer of the hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
while answer D is a normal weakening option.....but again, this is not really a weakening question.
To be honest this is a very tough one, when you see this question, you should celebrate, because that means you are hitting the top top tier of the gmat takers....
And, if you meet these flaw questions again, please just treat them as weakening question, this is a exception to the generalization about FLAW question, which contains both flaw option and weakening option....
way too tricky.
99% of the flaw questions, treat them as weakening one
hope this explantion helps....作者: thumbbunny 时间: 2012-8-8 06:27
明白了，谢谢各位！
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)
