Some airlines allegedly reduce fares on certain routes to a level at which they lose money, in order to drive competitors off those routes. However, this method of eliminating competition cannot be profitable in the long run. Once an airline successfully implements this method, any attempt to recoup the earlier losses by charging high fares on that route for an extended period would only provide competitors with a better opportunity to undercut the airline's fares.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) In some countries it is not illegal for a company to drive away competitors by selling a product below cost.
(B) Airline executives generally believe that a company that once underpriced its fares to drive away competitors is very likely to do so again if new competitors emerge.
(C) As part of promotions designed to attract new customers, airlines sometimes reduce their ticket prices to below an economically sustainable level.
(D) On deciding to stop serving particular routes, most airlines shift resources to other routes rather than reduce the size of their operations.
(E) When airlines dramatically reduce their fares on a particular route, the total number of air passengers on that route increases greatly.
請問B弱化的原因
飛機的老闆都知道這些把戲了
所以在這些人把票價提高的時候 他們也跟著提高嗎?
不懂~
还是我翻译有问题? B:
飞机的老板普遍相信使用低价来对付竞争者
在有新的竞争者出现时
是很可能再一次被拿来应用的?
如果说是因为同一招被重复用就代表这招是有效的
但也只能证明他可以成功drive away他的竞争者
不能弱化作者说的 profitable?
或说B weaken了什么ㄋ?
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |