og-30 有些不理解

The price the government pays for standard weapons purchased from military contractors is determined by a
pricing method called “historical costing.” Historical costing allows contractors to protect their profits by adding a
percentage increase, based on the current rate of inflation, to the previous year’s contractual price.
Which of the following statements, if true, is the best basis for a criticism of historical costing as an economically
sound pricing method for military contracts?
A. The government might continue to pay for past inefficient use of funds.
B. The rate of inflation has varied considerably over the past twenty years.
C. The contractual price will be greatly affected by the cost of materials used for the products.
D. Many taxpayers question the amount of money the government spends on military contracts.
E. The pricing method based on historical costing might not encourage the development of innovative
weapons.

这里的economically sound pricing method 是针对政府的呢？还是针对contractor的呢？

看答案应该是针对政府的，但是为什么原文还要强调用histrorical costing来保护contractor呢？提价应该是对合同商有利。多此一举的感觉

晕了，也许我考虑太多了，希望nn们赐教，我是蔡鸟

1)"economically sound pricing method"无所谓针对政府或contractor,它只是指政府向military contractors购买weapons时所采用的定价政策；当然是对historical costing的一种criticism. 若"economically sound pricing method"可实施，则将会减少购买成本。

2)"Historical costing"指历史成本法，是会计学上的一种成本计算方法，它基于过去购买的实际价格。如果采用历史成本法，那么对于contractor是有利的。因为"Historical costing allows contractors to protect their profits by adding a percentage increase, based on the current rate of inflation, to the previous year’s contractual price."

这并非多此一举，而是为了选择正确选项做铺垫。从而证明过去的funds是inefficient,而现在还在继续inefficient. That's why ETS said "it preserves these inefficiencies".

但愿可以解释清楚。

我当时的思路：

A.无关（反正老美有的是钱，不在乎什么inefficient）

B.无关

C.正确

D.无关

E.原因牵强，不如C说的直接。

今天复习的时候再做这道题又错了。。。。。。。

因为如果用历史成本,因为当初的实际购买价格可能包含其他的成本,比如并不都是商品的成本,可能是商家加在价格上的利润.而当通货膨胀时,政府如文中的保护措施,使的那不必要的成本部分也加进了保护,所以削弱了.

我是这么认为的