求请教！OG12 CR 80

leweiyang · 发表于 2011-4-11 16:03:48

80. Products sold under a brand name used to command premium prices because, in general, they were superior to nonbrand rival products. Technical expertise in product development has become so widespread, however, that special quality advantages are very hard to obtain these days and even harder to maintain. As a consequence, brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices. Paradoxically, brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the paradox outlined above?
(A) Brand names are taken by consumers as a guarantee of getting a product as good as the best rival products.
(B) Consumers recognize that the quality of products sold under invariant brand names can drift over time.
(C) In many acquisitions of one corporation by another, the acquiring corporation is interested more in acquiring the right to use certain brand names than in acquiring existing production facilities.
(D) In the days when special quality advantages were easier to obtain than they are now, it was also easier to get new brand names established.
(E) The advertising of a company’s brand-name products is at times transferred to a new advertising agency, especially when sales are declining.

答案选A，为什么？
还有，argument第一句话到底是什么意思，command premium prices命令溢价？这是经济学上的知识吗？我专业不是这个，不理解它的含义，如果能理解，可能会对理解argument有所帮助吧。。
So, 求大牛指点

leweiyang · 发表于 2011-4-11 20:31:13

悲剧地自己顶下…………难道大家都懂了就我比较笨不明白吗………………………………………………

dengts · 发表于 2011-4-11 21:34:42

commanding premium prices means selling at high prices.
the question want us to resolve the paradox:brand-name products that can't offer special quality command premium prices.
ask yourself:does high prices really require one business to offer special quality?Of course not.If one can produce just better-but-not-best-product,it can command premium.

ainiAnnie · 发表于 2012-4-14 11:01:23

我觉得这道题主要是看懂它的paradox，因为题目比较长，表达又不直接所以觉得无从下手。
第一句话是说：品牌产品比没牌子的产品贵，因为品牌产品质量比较好。
后面来了一个转折，however，否定前一个观点，说了一大串，要表达的意思就是无论是在价格上还是在质量上，品牌和非品牌的产品都无差异，为什么品牌产品的市场优势却前所未有的大呢？
答案A解释了这个矛盾，A指出消费者把名牌作为最好产品的保证，所以才会导致品牌产品优势依旧很大。
希望有所帮助。

maestri · 发表于 2012-4-14 13:14:44

正文大概翻译：品牌产品通常值得更高的价格，因为通常他们的质量要比非品牌同类商品要好。但是，产品研发技术现在被广泛应用，因此特别的质量优势目前很难被获取，更难被保持.结果，品牌产品不但难以提供高质量，也很难卖出高价格。矛盾的是，品牌商品比以前拥有更大的市场优势。
问题：哪一项。如果为真，能够帮助解释上述矛盾（矛盾是：品牌产品质量上并无优势，却为何获得更大的市场竞争力？）

A:消费者相信品牌能够提供买到最佳商品的保证

zwhjzwhj · 发表于 2012-8-18 15:56:59

我真的不明白第一句话

Products sold under a brand name used to command premium prices because, in general, they were superior to nonbrand rival products.

说的是有brand的比没brand的贵，而且，比没brand的好，对吧。

但是后面又说，于是，
As a consequence,
brand-name products generally neither offer higher quality nor sell at higher prices.

brand-name products既不比普通的质量好，也不卖的高价。

这不是自相矛盾吗？

12711399 · 发表于 2012-12-11 07:25:11

哥选了D 哥表示强连抗议啥叫paradox

就是解释互相矛盾的东西
为什么今天市场名牌东西又不是特别好但是却可以卖的好，这个矛盾的paradox就可以被D解释：因为技术今天比较容易提高，但是建立牌子难

当然A也没错反正这两个我觉得都对 D更为深刻些直击要害

OA 是A

wangyaoshun · 发表于 2012-12-11 13:41:50

1. past: products under brand name were superior->premium prices2. now: technical expertise becomes widespread->no premium quality or price for products under brand names
(Naturally, the value of brand names go down)
Paradoxically, brand names are bigger marketing advantage
解释型题目，即加强paradoxically的部分
A: products under brand names >= best rival products (best non-branded products), meaning brand names still work as a competitive advantage, not losing their value, even all products (branded, non-branded) are the same in quality and price. In the past, brands might make money from charging premium on the products; now they still can make money buy selling more because of the brand effect mentioned in choice A.
B: "drift" makes this choice weaken the brand effect a little.
C: this comparison is irrelevant, even if the claim stands, it makes no support for the brand effect.
D: we are looking for something supporting a claim about the current situation, discussion about the past doesn't help at all
E: totally irrelevant.

cuikaka · 发表于 2017-7-9 23:58:40

先理清下原文逻辑：

背景：有牌子的一般比没牌子的价位要高
情况1：由于技术发展广泛，有牌子的产品既不会质量更好也不会价格更高——brand的作用在价格和质量非常变小
情况2：但是品牌仍然是一个非常重要的市场优势

注意——argument并不是围绕价格产生矛盾的，而是brand的重要与否

猜测：可能的答案也许在说除了价格和质量，brand还在其他方面发挥作用

A确实在说这个

B - 承认1，但是无法说明2
C - 与1矛盾
D - 在说过去的情况，与1的现状相悖
E - 完全无关

supremacy11 · 发表于 2017-10-16 22:48:00

cuikaka 发表于 2017-7-9 23:58
先理清下原文逻辑：

背景：有牌子的一般比没牌子的价位要高

“(C) In many acquisitions of one corporation by another, the acquiring corporation is interested more in acquiring the right to use certain brand names than in acquiring existing production facilities.”

This certainly supports the idea that brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever! It’s just missing one thing: it doesn’t explain why this is so. Your job is to fix the discrepancy, not to support the idea that brand names are a bigger marketing advantage than ever. Someone who mistakenly thought this was a Strengthen question would likely pick this answer. Eliminate.

求请教！OG12 CR 80

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()