|
7. (24651-!-item-!-188;#058&001089) As part of major renovations to Flowertown's Main Street train station, consultants to the train company proposed moving the station's entrance from its current valuable Main Street location to a low-rent adjoining side street and then leasing the high-rent entrance space to retail businesses. In that way, the train company could easily pay for those and all other proposed renovations without negative impact on its tight budget.
Which of the following, if true, would most strongly support the consultants' proposal? (A) More train commuters are employed in businesses located on Main Street than in businesses located on the adjoining side street. (B) A reliable survey of Flowertown's commuters showed that virtually none of them would use the train any less frequently if the station's entrance were moved. (C) The high-rent block of Flowertown's Main Street includes several buildings whose owners currently seek to replace long-standing tenants lost in recent months. (D) If the station's entrance were moved, the train company would need to begin costly renovations to its Main Street entrance space. (E) Ridership on Flowertown trains declined only slightly from 1970 to 1985 while other train companies lost large numbers of commuters.
我选的是A.答案说是B.
我的思路是这样的,原信息说顾问建议火车站把现在比较繁华的大门挪到相应人流较少的一侧,腾出的位置出租,这样的收益可以解决翻新火车站的费用. A.更多的乘客受雇于繁华的Main street,相比较之下,另一个的乘客较少. 所以我理解这样retail business就会有更多的客源, retail business的店家就更愿意承租此地,所以顾问的这个计划更为可行..避免届时entrance挪地了也没有客户愿意租用场地..
B呢,一个可靠的报告表明,没有人会因为车站的大门挪地而减少对车站的使用.. ok,乘客没有减少,人流会有是retail business的potential customer, 商家更愿入驻...
我认为顾问的建议的可行性在于entrance一旦挪地,是否有商家如愿入住,产生收入如愿解决翻新装修的费用,A就很好的解决和避免了意外的risk啊... 否则的话,我就是不改入口,就在人比较少的那侧出租摊位给rent business,按照B的逻辑,不也一样可以么?
请大家指教...
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-1-12 23:23:48编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2008-1-12 22:48:00
楼主
