prep ---45

shiguang · 发表于 2007-8-30 22:47:00

45. (33847-!-item-!-188;#058&007123)

A major impediment to wide acceptance of electric vehicles even on the part of people who use their cars almost exclusively for commuting is the inability to use electric vehicles for occasional extended trips. In an attempt to make purchasing electric vehicles more attractive to commuters, one electric vehicle producer is planning to offer customers three days free rental of a conventional car for every 1,000 miles that they drive their electric vehicle.

Which of the following, if true, most threatens the plan's prospects for success?

(A) Many electric vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips.

(B) Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles a week, the cost to the producer of making good the offer would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles.

(C) The relatively long time it takes to recharge the battery of an electric vehicle can easily be fitted into the regular patterns of car use characteristic of commuters.

(D) Although electric vehicles are essentially emission-free in actual use, generating the electricity necessary for charging an electric vehicle's battery can burden the environment.

(E) Some family vehicles are used primarily not for commuting but for making short local trips, such as to do errands.答案是 B?????

platobungee · 发表于 2007-8-31 01:21:00

这题最简单，只用相关性就可以做出来了，选项里只要B选项是跟题目中producer所提的那个促销plan相关，其它都是些跟plan无关的选项

题目要求就是让你选可以质疑plan的选项，那肯定是B了。

B的意思是说这个促销的花费将会很大，这样一来就会造成电力车原来已经很高的价格又变高，就更难卖了。

本来plan就是为了卖更好，现在却相反，所以B最大地打击了plan的预期

wgaggassi34 · 发表于 2007-10-23 10:56:00

至今都还没弄明白"相关"是怎么弄得~

mindfree · 发表于 2007-10-23 11:25:00

理解意思很重要。我感觉做CR不需要太多理论。你需要的就是深刻理解什么题目中的概念，如assumption, inference, etc.

这道题的意思是通过给free rental促销。但是促销会使价格上涨。e.g. The car is listed for $10k before any bonus or promotion. Now the dealer runs a promotion where buyers get a scooter with any car purchase. The only catch is that buys have to pay an extra 5k for the car to compensate for the cost. Do you think the deal will work?

这里你注意B选项说cost would add to high price. 说明价格会因此上涨。

Again, forget about terms. 理解文章最重要。很多题目都是考common sense.

нандин · 发表于 2007-11-11 19:30:00

题目的意思是：

为了促销，决定给那些行驶1000公里顾客三天的免费租用传统的车。

这就出现了个问题，租给这些顾客的车也是需要花钱的。那么这笔钱谁来买单，羊毛出在羊身上，肯定还是消费者！

B 选项Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles a week 是说顾客特别能费车，既然1周能行使100公里以上，那么三天肯定也能行驶不少，所以油费，保险阿，维修阿这些在这三天肯定花费不少，所以he cost to the producer of making good the offer would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles.

所以most threatens the plan's prospects for success

C。The relatively long time it takes to recharge the battery根 rental 无关

D。E。A同理都是无关的

iamlawrence · 发表于 2008-5-17 21:41:00

选项B有瑕疵。虽然价格很高但不一定买的人就不多，因为人们不喜欢的原因主要是耐力太差而不是价格，选项并没有说将消费者的倾向说明出来。但是在这里是最合适的选项。

cathyzq · 发表于 2008-5-18 00:05:00

PLAN针对对象，COMMUTERS，为何说他们不用EV，这个东西无法去很远。这是上面的论据得出的计划，那么说这个计划不可行，只有说，COMMUTER一周都没那么远，所以这个EVIDENCE是不可信的，那就是无因无果，哪里来的的计划，后面价格高只是补充一下！

做题抓CONCLUSION的关键对象！

浪逐曲奇 · 发表于 2019-9-23 16:53:32

mindfree 发表于 2007-10-23 11:25
理解意思很重要。我感觉做CR不需要太多理论。你需要的就是深刻理解什么题目中的概念，如assumption, infere ...

Mark一下！

Bensontuo · 发表于 2019-9-25 06:29:20

platobungee 发表于 2007-8-31 01:21
这题最简单，只用相关性就可以做出来了，选项里只要B选项是跟题目中producer所提的那个促销plan相关，其它 ...

I do respect your tactics of spotting the correct answer, since its efficient times of use and easy to be comprehended.  If I were you, I will totally ensure that this skill could be perfectly used due to its conveniences and focusing energies saved; however, I must also point out a fact that we still want to really understand the " logics of the argument " within the questions to best sniped-shot the right options, and, double check the question with your skills without wasting anymore time, since you have been mastering that skill for so long just to ace the test. It comes naturally. I get it.

Relentless speaking, personally I don't think that nor agree that we should rely the skills to ace the questions simply by skills when we don't understand.

Then, what should we do if we can't rely on the skills when we fail to really comprehend the argument by which we are asked to support or weaken based on its presumptions.

Peel it, and then question every single step.

Let me give you the example by this question.

The whole point argument be prone to make is " the demand for traveling extended trip is sufficient enough stimulate the transactions within the merchandised market as the fact which also guarantee that the impacts from being stimulated could perfectly support the cost to satisfy that demand, if so, even people have this demand, due to the fact that we can satisfy it, we wont be less disadvantaged compared to other car makers.

ok, what are the assumptions here ?

1. Commuters be willing to purchase  use e-cars are no less willing than other commuters whom currently do not own e-cars and also do not want to purchase nor use e-cars.

( Only if the demands truly exist, they can satisfy the demands.  )

2. By solving the issue arose by the inability could sufficiently higher the growth enough to reduce the degrees of the major impediment mentioned.

(  Flaw here: Mistaken reverse - one of the necessary conditions be cited that by which also serves as the sufficient condition )

Before answering the questions, let us engage with the argument with the above 2 necessary assumptions we found.

Remember, dont be distracted by the non relevant or out of the scope answer.

A. first of all, we are discussing the commuters who have demands of extended trips, and this option discussed "Commercial purposed e-cars are not needed for extended trips " I mean, if commercial purposed e cars are not needed, then we can still have e cars from the other varies purposed categories, and if that is true, then this can't weaken the argument.

B. What is to say, no less than 51% of the commuters do not have the demand of " extended trips ", so the cost resulting from offering the good offer upon the deals of E car is too high to be added on the already high price of E - car.

If there is no demands exist, then the opportunity costs from making that deal would increase the selling price without adding more extra value than traditional cars. And if it is true, then the major impediment would not be solved.

Great answer, which negate one of the commons necessary assumptions people might think of as encountering to the questions like this.

C. It could only be inferred that the times of recharging the battery is not sufficient nor necessary enough to causally linked to the acceptance of E cars. However, it does have nothing to do with the core of the argument.

What are the core of the argument ? 1. Does the sufficient condition exist ? or is it just a condition ? 2. If it is necessary from the conditional logic suggested, could it also be sufficient enough to guarantee it's sufficiency ?

Not relevant.

D. Off the scope, no evidence shown from the argument that the issue of whether the environment be burden relevant to the major impediment

E. Trap answer, so, the question we can spot in this answer is ... who to say that families which used cars primarily not for commuting but for making short local trips " do not " have the demands of extended trips.

Meanwhile, even they do have, who to say that the group of families which exclusively for commuting's preferences would be necessary impacted by the group of the families claimed from the options ? ( Off the scope )

本贴相关题目 GMATPrep-2007E1-CR-45 (YDZE)

相关帖子

更多相关帖子

prep ---45

prep ---45

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()