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. 我选的是E 可是答案为什么是B？！作者: camelo777 时间: 2011-6-20 00:42
E明显是无关的，题目说的是公司通过降价可以挤走竞争对手，但是如果这个公司的价格又回到正常水平的话，那么那些竞争者就有机会重新回来竞争。
问削弱，E无关，现在讨论的是回升价格以后的事，与降价时发生的事情无关。
B选项说Airline executives generally believe 一个通过降价挤走竞争者的公司未来还会再这么做，如果有新的竞争者出现的话。这就削弱了原文的结论，新的竞争者一想我要是和你竞争你又降价了，那我就不和你竞争了，所以原文的结论就不成立了作者: lllmmm 时间: 2011-6-20 13:44
谢谢！