[語文]PP1-CR-17

[prettyting (get a food in the door)]

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 table

答案是C

已經看過CD、Formosa的討論串但仍有些許不確定

想要請各位高手幫我確認下這樣解釋的邏輯有沒有錯誤~麻煩大家幫忙下!謝謝~

<題目大意> 高坐檯可以提供比較好的view來看名人，且坐高腳檯的客人用餐時間比做一般

坐檯用餐的客人時間長，所以H餐廳決定增加高腳檯來增加利潤。

<我的解釋> C.選高腳檯的客人是普遍性逗留在H餐廳的例外
             (選高腳檯的人並非用餐而是看名人，所以停留時間長；
              所以如果H餐廳增加高腳檯，雖然會使客人增加，但也
              會使客人逗留時間增加，餐廳流動率變小，所以餐廳
              利潤並不會應此增加)---->所以C選項反駁原文

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 60.245.116.133
推 Vinicks:簡單來說就是 原文是說一般來講 流動率高
→ Vinicks:但是好萊屋的餐廳是例外 流動率低 因此反駁嚕
→ Vinicks:其實和H餐廳沒關係阿 原文是說 一般來說H餐廳使用高腳椅
→ Vinicks:應該會幫助流動率 但是 反駁的理由是 H餐廳的客人 反而
→ Vinicks:普遍喜歡逗留在H餐廳而不走 因此反駁就算換高腳椅了也沒用
推 Vinicks:你有點看錯題目嚕^^" 高腳椅的意思是說 高腳椅可以提供好
→ Vinicks:的視野 也會加流動率 反駁其中一點 可以以反駁理論嚕