GWD1-36

sensornet

  In corporate purchasing,>>

       competitive scrutiny is typically

       limited to suppliers of items that are

Line       directly related to end products.

  (5)      With “indirect” purchases (such as

computers, advertising, and legal

services), which are not directly

related to production, corporations

often favor “supplier partnerships”

(10)      (arrangements in which the

purchaser forgoes the right to

pursue alternative suppliers), which

can inappropriately shelter suppliers

from rigorous competitive scrutiny

(15)      that might afford the purchaser

economic leverage.  There are two

independent variables—availability

of alternatives and ease of changing

suppliers—that companies should

(20)      use to evaluate the feasibility of

       subjecting suppliers of indirect

       purchases to competitive scrutiny.

This can create four possible

situations.

(25)            In Type 1 situations, there are

many alternatives and change is

relatively easy.  Open pursuit of

alternatives—by frequent com-

petitive bidding, if possible—will

(30)      likely yield the best results.  In

Type 2 situations, where there

are many alternatives but change

       is difficult—as for providers of

employee health-care benefits—it

(35)    is important to continuously test

the market and use the results to

secure concessions from existing

suppliers.  Alternatives provide a

      credible threat to suppliers, even if

(40)     the ability to switch is constrained.

In Type 3 situations, there ate few

alternatives, but the ability to switch

without difficulty creates a threat that

companies can use to negotiate

(45)      concessions from existing suppliers.

In Type 4 situations, where there

are few alternatives and change

is difficult, partnerships may be

unavoidable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q36:

Which of the following can be inferred about supplier partnerships, as they are described in the passage?

              

1. They cannot be sustained unless the goods or services provided are available from a large number of suppliers.
   
2. They can result in purchasers paying more for goods and services than they would in a competitive-bidding situation.
   
3. They typically are instituted at the urging of the supplier rather than the purchaser.
   
4. They are not feasible when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers’ end products.
   
5. They are least appropriate when the purchasers’ ability to change suppliers is limited.

Hi, my friends,

I chose E for this question, while the answer is B. No presvious discussion is available to give a exact reason to kick out E. Thought B could be inferred from L15-16, I still cannot totally deny E since the listed four situations imply that if the ability of purchasers is not limited the supplier partnership nobody would use Supplier Partnership. The only puzzled word in E is "appropriate" in which the exact meaning is not so clear. Could anybody help me? Thanks.

sensornet

ding

wangyu73cn

E是错误的。因为有两个要素决定supplier partnerships的合理性，E只反映了一方面，这并不能保证其合理性，只有在文中第4种情况下才能说supplier partnerships的合理性是没有问题的。

请再思考一下原文的意思。