大牛看过来吧prep cr2 17

thumbbunny

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

首先，是问题。这道题究竟是WEAKEN，还是ASSUMPTION呢？反正大家众说纷纭。我觉得这道题是要找一个能削弱结论的前提，（以前都好像没见过这么问的），其实weaken 也好assumption也罢，反正找个能削弱的。

争议点主要存在于CD两个选项。

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。

但是如果更短呢？那怎么解释啊？还是说这里的exception就要按照更长来理解呢？我看很多弄明白的人都是按照更长来理解的。

thumbbunny

明白了，谢谢各位！

kenwk

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....

uniquenellier

这道题考的是矛盾的普遍性和特殊性，一直在用一般餐馆（普遍性）和好莱坞餐馆（特殊性）的不一样来回打马虎眼变魔术。解题的关键在于要强调好莱坞餐馆不是一般的餐馆儿。

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。

c选项是说高脚凳比标准座就餐时间短这个前提是普遍性的，但是来好莱坞餐馆的人具有特殊性，因为种种原因：比如说坐在stools上的人是看明星的，他们就老坐着不走等着明星来；也可能是坐在标准座的人老被盯着看是不是明星，感觉很不爽就吃的特快就走了。

d选项说一般来说，吃的时间长是因为点的东西贵。同样这是一个矛盾普遍性，好莱坞餐馆的顾客就是和劳苦大众不一样。劳苦大众是来吃饭的，我们是吃饱闲的看明星来的。所以我们就是点一杯饮料做一下午。

linyuanlyn

网上很多这个的讨论帖

搬运过来一个解释

C关键在于理解GENERALIZATION指的是什么: 它其实指原文这句话diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables

还有推理的过程是：高的桌子=》提高客座率=》增加利润

削弱的方法就是打断这个东西

C指的是，顾客将会停留很久


好吧。。我觉得我也输了，在这道题面前

maylovemay

继续顶一下，快考试了，请大家一起来看看吧》。

maylovemay

这道题我也没弄明白，盼牛牛解释下！另外怎么查prep上逻辑的讨论啊？我不会找，求指点！
关于题目的问题我觉得是weaken，因为题目翻译过来就是:这个论述易受批评攻击是因为它让人们有理由相信......

我选的是D，但知道答案是C后，也一下子看到D存在缺陷，因为逗留时间短正好可以弥补消费少的缺陷，使得更多人有机会用餐，所以不一定点餐便宜了就不会增加利润，还需要考察别的因素，即如果能有更多的人用餐是否可以抵消点餐便宜带来的利润下降。

但是C我实在看不明白，但是选项本身就是蛮难准确明白意思的！！求解啊！