ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 5471|回复: 12
打印 上一主题 下一主题

og-30

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2003-12-6 10:30:00 | 只看该作者

og-30

The price the government pays for standard weapons purchased from military contractors is determined by a pricing method called "historical costing." Historical costing allows contractors to protect their profits by adding a percentage increase, based on the current rate of inflation, to the previous year's contractual price.
Which of the following statements, if true, is the best basis for a criticism of historical costing as an economically sound pricing method for military contracts?
A. The government might continue to pay for past inefficient use of funds.
B. The rate of inflation has varied considerably over the past twenty years.
C. The contractual price will be greatly affected by the cost of materials used for the products.
D. Many taxpayers question the amount of money the government spends on military contracts.
E. The pricing method based on historical costing might not encourage the development of innovatice weapons.
正确答案是A.请给解释一下.
沙发
发表于 2003-12-6 10:36:00 | 只看该作者
a就是很好的解释嘛
如果去年钱太多了可以乱花,那么今年按照制度的话,就还会更多的钱可以乱花,所以,这个制度就不好咯
那不是鼓励乱花钱了嘛
板凳
发表于 2003-12-6 20:41:00 | 只看该作者
根据选项与原文的有关无关,用排除法---5个选项中只有A是有关的,其他4个都无关
地板
发表于 2003-12-6 21:31:00 | 只看该作者
呵呵,小崔的方法也很好啊,以前没想到呢
5#
发表于 2004-9-30 10:55:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用liu9903在2003-9-6 13:34:00的发言:
政府用的计价方法是:在以前的合约上的价格上加上一个通货膨胀率。这样的话,如果以前的定和约时的价格太高了,现在还是会继续这个高价,这样政府使用资金的就不是最有效率的。也就是说,不管以前的价格怎样,现在继续。当然有可能造成不合理的情况的啊
6#
发表于 2005-7-31 15:32:00 | 只看该作者
以下是引用yhcui在2003-12-6 20:41:00的发言:
根据选项与原文的有关无关,用排除法---5个选项中只有A是有关的,其他4个都无关


怎么一下看出来与题目的有关无关选项?
7#
发表于 2005-7-31 17:00:00 | 只看该作者

怎么一下看出来与题目的有关无关选项?


确实BCDE都是无关选项。


sammaijgd可以仔细看一下OG的解释:


Because historical costing responds to inflation, B and C are consistent with the economic soundness of historical costing-the rate of inflation and costs that are reflected in inflation. D offers no grounds for questioning the economic soundness of historical costing in particular. Historical costing applies to standard weapons only, not to the innovative weapons that are mentioned in E.

8#
发表于 2005-8-12 17:09:00 | 只看该作者
og的解释真的很好啊
9#
发表于 2006-5-10 17:34:00 | 只看该作者

DE应该是无关的,但是"B and C are consistent with the economic soundness "也是无关吗??


10#
发表于 2006-5-10 20:33:00 | 只看该作者

  我对C有个疑惑, a 是以政府的角度考虑问题,继续乱花钱不合理。


   但是问题是as an economically sound pricing method for military contracts?


   military contracts并没有特指一定是政府,而C所指出的正是合同对供应商的不公正支处, 问什么不 对呢?!

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-9-17 05:43
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部