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.
这道题答案是B, 我选了D。
看了很多网上对于这道题的讨论, 但还是没有很懂。
我的问题是: "what is the argument?"
argument是 “However, this method of eliminating competition cannot be profitable in the long run.” ?? 还是最后一句“. 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.”??
做题时我认为argument是“However, this method of eliminating competition cannot be profitable in the long run.” , weaken the argument 就是找答案 说明 this method.... can be profitable in the long run.所以我选了D, 大多数航空公司决定关闭这条航线, 因此打价格战的公司占领整个市场, 可以实现 profitable in the long run ; 而选项B 如果新的竞争者进入, 航空公司还要打价格战, 降价到甚至亏损,不能实现profitable in the long run.。
跪求明白的大神或者小伙伴们可以讲讲这道题!!感谢啊!
|