本贴相关题目 GMATPrep-2007E2-CR-15 (ZAKA)

00:00:00

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?

AIn some countries it is not illegal for a company to drive away competitors by selling a product below cost.
BAirline 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.
CAs part of promotions designed to attract new customers, airlines sometimes reduce their ticket prices to below an economically sustainable level.
DOn deciding to stop serving particular routes, most airlines shift resources to other routes rather than reduce the size of their operations.
EWhen airlines dramatically reduce their fares on a particular route, the total number of air passengers on that route increases greatly.

正确答案: B

牛人来看一道PREP07 CR 急

[复制链接]

holdonzz

楼主

发表于 2011-6-2 22:17:28 | 显示全部楼层

我觉得这道题的答案是D；
正如二楼所说，题干的结论是通过降价驱逐竞争者的策略在长远看来是不利的。
题目问的是要削弱这个结论，即证明这个策略长远来看是可行的。
如果Ｂ，一旦新竞争者再进入，该公司还会继续低价打折来驱逐竞争者。（注意，低价出售根据题干来说是赔钱的）。
那么如果上述行为被各个航空公司的管理人员公认的，假设Ａ公司目前通过低价办法赶走了竞争对手Ｂ，那么Ｃ公司来了，Ａ公司还要低价赔钱卖，Ｄ公司来了，Ａ公司继续赔钱卖。试想，如果你是Ａ公司的管理者，还会通过这种方法来实现长远利益么？这种方法会因为后续D E F G...一系列的新竞争公司到来，而活活把A公司拖垮！所以本题B选项根本没有削弱原题结论。（即证明题干所说策略可行）

而本题D选项才是答案，由于赶走了的竞争者，换到其他航线上去了。所以在该航线成功的公司就可以独霸了，涨价弥补以前损失的计划就完全可行了，即削弱了原文结论。