pp2-17

[vantreal]

17. (26864-!-item-!-188;#058&003368)

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 tables

不太確定答案的思考模式 =.=

[dibert8]

弱化"高腳桌椅可以看名人,吃飯時間短(i.e.客人流動率快),就賺得多."
(A) (B) 重點是觀光客,不是名人
(C) 坐高腳桌椅的客人待得特別久 (i.e. 與預期效果相反)
(D) 無關於吃飯的價錢貴不貴
(E) 武斷字眼 all, no (不見得都這樣吧!)
=> (C)

[vantreal]

對不起, 我還是有點不太清楚.
(C) 不是指exception嗎?
客人不會久待??

[vantreal]

哦, 看了CD的解說, 有點了了.
以下是對岸大大的解說:

一個選擇吧台的顧客成了關於逗留規律的例外，也就是說一個選擇吧台顧客逗留時間比標準餐台顧客長.

[jerryhaha]

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that


請問這句的意思是這樣嗎?


這個結論是站不住腳的,因為餐廳的立論基礎是餐廳相信......


而C選的意思是,選擇高腳椅的人都會是喜歡耗在餐廳的例外
所以是說選擇高腳椅的人都不會呆很久

這是我的翻譯,請教一下哪裡錯誤了?

題目是問說因為哪個立論基礎是薄弱的,所以餐廳的結論會是錯誤的

因此選項就要選餐廳的錯誤立論基礎吧?

[crazykai]

我覺得C很難用翻譯表達確切的概念 以下是我的看法 大家可以討論看看

題目的意思是
H餐廳目前只有standard-height tables。那些來看名人的顧客喜歡使用 tall tables with stools，因為它提供了較佳的視野。而坐在 stools 的客人平均用餐時間小於坐在 standard-height tables 的客人。因此，H餐廳將standard-height tables換成 stools 能帶來更大的利潤 (因為顧客流動率提高)

而 (C) 選擇 tall table 的客人將是一個特例 (對於逗留不去的普遍性概念) ，這裡所謂"逗留不去的普遍性概念"指的是Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

既然跟這個概念相反，表示那些選擇tall table的客人會坐很久，因此無法提升客戶流動率

[ginachi]

題目：Moreover,diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.
答案：a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
題目說：一般來說(typically)選高腳椅的人坐的時間比較短。客戶流動率高。
答案說：但是在Holleywood這地方一般來說(generalization)說選高腳椅的人坐的時間比較長。客戶流動率低。

這感覺像：小美是典型的美女，但是在Holleywood這地方不流行像小美這樣的美女。

一開始看這題看到題目有profits就選了D，雖然覺得價錢和利潤成正比或反比是不一定的。
乍看之下覺得C好像在WEAKEN一個事實，就像我舉小美的例子一樣，只用"小美不是美女的"來weaken，也不覺得對。可如果限定在Holleywood，就好像對了。

我是後來才想出這樣的解釋不知道大大們覺得對嗎????

[chris8888]

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.
H餐廳, 目前僅有標準高度的桌子
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.
然而, 許多顧客來看常出入H餐廳的名人, 他們較喜歡有凳子的高桌子, 因為它提供較佳的視野
Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.
再說, 用餐的人坐在凳子上大都待沒坐在標準高度椅子上的人久
Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.
因此, 如果H餐廳增加較高的桌子和凳子, 它的利潤將會提高

總結 :
1. 這餐廳大都是標準桌子Standard-Tables
2. 認為因為客人座高桌子和等子的時間較短, 所以要替換掉, 說是可以賺錢
3. 能不能夠賺錢是跟顧客習性(高桌子和標準桌子)有關, 跟名人無關

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
還原 =>
it is likely to believe that the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason

廢話一堆 :其實是要你找推翻

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
跟名人有關, 殺
(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
不要談名人, 殺
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
跟顧客有關, H餐廳的顧客會選擇去坐在高桌子的人, 可能是例外於這項逗留行為的泛論(以偏概全). 意思是說, H餐廳認為顧客喜歡高桌子因為視野好, 同時逗留時間不會像標準高度的桌子那樣的久, 但若這個觀點被推翻, 那這個argument就被weaken了.
(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
跟顧客有關, 這個選項很像是標準答案, 跟錢有關, 我選了這個答案, 但後來想想
有幾點會是他錯誤的理由
1. H餐廳的顧客行為, 不能用一間餐廳的顧客來論斷, 太偏頗, 犯了generalization的錯
2. 花較少時間在他們的用餐上也會花較少的錢, 跟那些待比較久在吃飯的人相比之下, 乍看是對, 但我認為GMAT考很細, 花較少的錢到底少多少沒講, 同時薄利多銷之下, 也是可能會賺錢, 比方說一頓飯50美金才少了10美金, 但是在三梯次的人來看名人之下, 三梯次總和收益是(50-10)*3 = 120美金, 原先要是坐在標準椅可能賴著不走, 雖花了一次就80美金, 但是仍舊是低於120美金, 這一點倒是沒講清楚, 不過考試建議在a restaurant's customers <== 太過膚淺的泛論, 要用一間餐廳的顧客行為generalize到H餐廳太過武斷. 資訊取樣也不足, 如同答案C說的the generalization about customer's behavior.
(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
無關選項

[chris8888]

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.

說有人喜歡高腳椅, 視野好, 把椅子都換掉可以增加獲利.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
如果哪一根本條件為真, 這論點就站不住腳了.

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
無關名人
(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
無關名人
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
對於逗留的推估, 不過是個例外事件, 餐廳老闆基本的推論錯誤, 推翻他的generalization.
題目在講絕對會影響他的獲利.
推翻效果99.9%, 因為基礎論點都被推翻了.
(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
待久待長, 訂多訂少餐點, 與獲利無關. 還得要看成本結構呢. too specific.
題目在講絕對會影響他的獲利.
推翻效果個人以為10%
(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
支持, 不是推翻

[Huang Hsin-Yi]

我覺得C很難用翻譯表達確切的概念 以下是我的看法 大家可以討論看看

題目的意思是
H餐廳目前只有standard-height tables。那些來看名人的顧客喜歡使用 tall tables with stools，因為它提供了較佳的視野。而坐在 stools 的客人平均用餐時間小於坐在 standard-height tables 的客人。因此，H餐廳將standard-height tables換成 stools 能帶來更大的利潤 (因為顧客流動率提高)

而 (C) 選擇 tall table 的客人將是一個特例 (對於逗留不去的普遍性概念) ，這裡所謂"逗留不去的普遍性概念"指的是Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

既然跟這個概念相反，表示那些選擇tall table的客人會坐很久，因此無法提升客戶流動率

贊成這位大大的看法
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering

一位好萊嗚的顧客將是逗留不去通則的例外,因此店主預期周轉率高的高腳椅來提升利潤可能會失敗

就像:白色床單在日本大賣, 一位台灣的顧客可能是這個喜好的例外

[aqboy[origen]]

關於E選項

(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

期望看到名人的顧客們坐在tall table上, 卻只能看到其他TALL TABLE ,而看不到名人

這樣有否定"顧客們期望看到名人的目的"吧??

[chencraig0227]

1. 想看明星的人喜歡座高椅子(因為可以獲得好視野)
2. 而且 做高椅子的人待的時間短
→ 餐廳換高椅子可以增加獲利

沒有足夠條件證明
..., there is no view except of other tall tables 可以削弱好視野!
搞不好明星都座在tall table 所以也都看的到!

[aqboy[origen]]

"搞不好明星都座在tall table 所以也都看的到!"

這句有道理@@

[whoisallan]

linger: to stay somewhere a little longer, especially because you don't want to leave. (longman)

ex: They lingered over coffee and missed the last bus.

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
大部分坐高腳椅的客人都只會呆一下下,連消費都還沒消費就走了(linger應該有這個意思在): weaken了題幹中換高腳椅因為用餐時間縮短而可以增加利潤的講法

請問一下(E)要怎麼翻譯比較好? 看不是很懂!

[aqboy[origen]]

小弟覺得是這樣~

這題不是單純的Weaken,是要根據題目所給的資訊,說明其立論基礎上的錯誤

只有C是針對題目給的資訊,說明這個假設是錯誤的,導致題目的argument is vulnerable to criticism

E選項其實也是weaken, 但是沒有針對題目的argument,所以不能選