In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny is typically limited to suppliers of items that are directly related to end products. With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships” (arrangements in which the purchaser forgoes the right to pursue alternative suppliers), which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny that might afford the purchaser economic leverage. There are two independent variables—availability of alternatives and ease of changing suppliers—that companies should use to evaluate the feasibility of subjecting suppliers of indirect purchases to competitive scrutiny. This can create four possible situations.
In Type 1 situations, there are many alternatives and change is relatively easy. Open pursuit of alternatives—by frequent competitive bidding, if possible—will likely yield the best results. In Type 2 situations, where there are many alternatives but change is difficult—as for providers of employee health-care benefits—it is important to continuously test the market and use the results to secure concessions from existing suppliers. Alternatives provide a credible threat to suppliers, even if the ability to switch is constrained. In Type 3 situations, there are few alternatives, but the ability to switch without difficulty creates a threat that companies can use to negotiate concessions from existing suppliers. In Type 4 situations, where there are few alternatives and change is difficult, partnerships may be unavoidable.
GWD1-Q35:
Which of the following best describes the relation of the second paragraph to the first?
A. The second paragraph offers proof of an assertion made in the first paragraph.
B. The second paragraph provides an explanation for the occurrence of a situation described in the first paragraph.
C. The second paragraph discusses the application of a strategy proposed in the first paragraph.
D. The second paragraph examines the scope of a problem presented in the first paragraph.
E. The second paragraph discusses the contradictions inherent in a relationship described in the first paragraph.
答案是C.
在我看来，第二段的目的，是具体阐述第一段提到的四个situation。
可是这个所谓的application of strategy怎么理解呢？
Hello,
好像有點久了..還是討論一下
這題我也有困擾,
我想, 第一段提到"...that companies should use to evaluate the feasibility ...", 表示作者提出了一個公司應該用的strategy,這個strategy是用來evaluate能否使supplier轉入競爭局面的可行性, 而後面一段提出幾個狀況正是”此公司如何evaluate的應用解釋.
至於B不成立的原因在我看來是比較清楚: "...an explanation for the occurrence of a situation described in the first paragraph.."第二段的四個情況, 第一段並未提到.
Jo
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |