15. (25986-!-item-!-188;#058&002914)
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.
Ans: (B)
不知道
大家是如何解释B 的
我在网上看到
有人解释为
B说各家航空公司的总裁们认为一家曾经降价的公司很有可能再次采取这种方法如果他们敢与这家公司竞争的话(趁它提价时降价).
也就是说他们不太可能与这家争了,这家降价的公司可长期保持没有竞争者的状态,从而可以长期profitable
问题一:
但我很好奇的地方是
蓝色的部分
那个是自己的想法吧?!
是不是也可以解释说
一有对手出现
就使用低于成本的营销策略
而一直楚于亏损状态
所以没办法创造出长期获利
这样就变成support 啦!?
问题二:
这题
到底是再
weaken 哪一部分呢?? 重点在哪??
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |