ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1326|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

ball ball 大佬们帮小弟解释下这道RC的题目

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2019-10-12 20:23:16 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
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.


Which of the following can be inferred about supplier partnerships, as they are described in the passage?                    

                    

                                                       
  • AThey cannot be sustained unless the goods or services provided are available from a large number of suppliers.
                                                       
  • BThey can result in purchasers paying more for goods and services than they would in a competitive-bidding situation.
                                                       
  • CThey typically are instituted at the urging of the supplier rather than the purchaser.
                                                       
  • DThey are not feasible when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers` end products.
                                                       
  • EThey are least appropriate when the purchasers` ability to change suppliers is limited.
  • 我自己感觉定位句在第一段第二句,但是看不懂那句话在表达什么。。。有没有大神帮帮我



收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2019-10-16 05:26:09 | 只看该作者
原文定位:supplier partnerships, which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny (that might afford the purchaser economic leverage).
不要看括号里的东西,因为这是修饰前面什么是competitive scrutiny

这句话翻译成人话就是, 因为有了supplier partnership,所以supplier可以减少竞争
==> 正常逻辑结果就是,购买方会付更多的钱嘛
==> 选项B: They can result in purchasers paying more for goods and services than they would in a competitive-bidding situation.
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2019-10-27 11:56:25 | 只看该作者
千禧虫虫 发表于 2019-10-16 05:26
原文定位:supplier partnerships, which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitiv ...

靴靴!!!总算懂了!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-18 10:55
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部