（转载 ）来自CD的 sdcar2010 大神说
The reason to eliminate D) is that this question is a must be true type of question, meaning you cannot introduce NEW information. D) introduces NEW information while C) only points out the self-controversy stated in the stimulus.
If you think about it, how can you deduce D) by reading the stimulus ONLY? The prompt directs you to find something which "gives reason to believe that it is likely" according to the passage.
The following is the complete analysis.
First of all, this is similar to a paradox question and the question stem asks you to find the criticism which points out the deficiency in the argument. So let's analyze the argument.
Premises:
1) Customers come to Hollywood Restaurant to watch the celebrities so customrs would prefer tall tables to get a better view.
2) Diners seated on stools typically stay a shorter time than diners on regular seats.
Conclusion:
If the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.
Basically, the argument says that stools would attract more customers and customers sitting on stools turn over quickly. Therefore, profits would be up. Wait a minute. Based on premise 1, if the customers are attracted to the restaraunt because they want to see celebrities, shouldn't they stay LONGER than normal customers? If so, it runs contrary to premise 2 which describes a general trend in customer's lingering behavior. The customer attracted might sit on the stools for a LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNG time without spending much on food. No turnover, no money!
C points out this paradox and C is the correct answer.
（转载 ）来自CD的 sdcar2010
The reason to eliminate D) is that this question is a must be true type of question, meaning you cannot introduce NEW information. D) introduces NEW information while C) only points out the self-controversy stated in the stimulus.
If you think about it, how can you deduce D) by reading the stimulus ONLY? The prompt directs you to find something which "gives reason to believe that it is likely" according to the passage.
The following is the complete analysis.
First of all, this is similar to a paradox question and the question stem asks you to find the criticism which points out the deficiency in the argument. So let's analyze the argument.
Premises:
1) Customers come to Hollywood Restaurant to watch the celebrities so customrs would prefer tall tables to get a better view.
2) Diners seated on stools typically stay a shorter time than diners on regular seats.
Conclusion:
If the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.
Basically, the argument says that stools would attract more customers and customers sitting on stools turn over quickly. Therefore, profits would be up. Wait a minute. Based on premise 1, if the customers are attracted to the restaraunt because they want to see celebrities, shouldn't they stay LONGER than normal customers? If so, it runs contrary to premise 2 which describes a general trend in customer's lingering behavior. The customer attracted might sit on the stools for a LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNG time without spending much on food. No turnover, no money!
C points out this paradox and C is the correct answer.
题目：1、好莱坞现在都是standard height桌椅；2、高桌椅可以更好看到明星（所以顾客会喜欢）；3、顾客在高桌椅吃饭的时间段，翻台率高。综合而言，顾客喜欢->会选择；而选择后翻台率高->利润高
A明星来好莱坞想被人看到，所以选择高桌椅->明星也是顾客之一，更多顾客选高桌椅，strengthen。
Bcompensates，至少不降低利润，不strengthen也不weaken
C假设题干的推理（generalization）对来好莱坞的顾客不适用，肯定就是weaken。
D只是强调了单个客人的消费，没有考虑翻台率。不能确定是否weaken
E解释为什么tall table有利于看明星。与题干无关。
（转载 ）来自CD的 sdcar2010
The reason to eliminate D) is that this question is a must be true type of question, meaning you cannot introduce NEW information. D) introduces NEW information while C) only points out the self-controversy stated in the stimulus.
If you think about it, how can you deduce D) by reading the stimulus ONLY? The prompt directs you to find something which "gives reason to believe that it is likely" according to the passage.
The following is the complete analysis.
First of all, this is similar to a paradox question and the question stem asks you to find the criticism which points out the deficiency in the argument. So let's analyze the argument.
Premises:
1) Customers come to Hollywood Restaurant to watch the celebrities so customrs would prefer tall tables to get a better view.
2) Diners seated on stools typically stay a shorter time than diners on regular seats.
Conclusion:
If the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.
Basically, the argument says that stools would attract more customers and customers sitting on stools turn over quickly. Therefore, profits would be up. Wait a minute. Based on premise 1, if the customers are attracted to the restaraunt because they want to see celebrities, shouldn't they stay LONGER than normal customers? If so, it runs contrary to premise 2 which describes a general trend in customer's lingering behavior. The customer attracted might sit on the stools for a LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNG time without spending much on food. No turnover, no money!
C points out this paradox and C is the correct answer.