[讨论]GWD 4- 5

goodmaneri

 

This CR is from GWD 4- the first reading passage:

 

Extensive research has shown

        that the effects of short-term price

        promotions on sales are themselves

Line
     short-term.  Companies’ hopes that

  (5)        promotions might have a positive

aftereffect have not been borne

out for reasons that researchers

have been able to identify.  A price

promotion entices only a brand’s

 (10)        long-term or “loyal” customers;

people seldom buy an unfamiliar

brand merely because the price is

reduced.  They simply avoid paying

more than they have to when one of

 (15)        their customary brands is temporar-

ily available at a reduced price.  A

price promotion does not increase

the number of long-term customers

of a brand, as it attracts virtually

 (20)        no new customers in the first place.

        Nor do price promotions have linger-

        ing aftereffects for a brand, even

negative ones such as damage to

a brand’s reputation or erosion of

 (25)      customer loyalty, as is often feared.

      So why do companies spend so

much on price promotions?  Clearly

price promotions are generally run

at a loss, otherwise there would

 (30)        be more of them.  And the bigger

the increase in sales at promotion

prices, the bigger the loss.  While

        short-term price promotions can

have legitimate uses, such as

(35)         reducing excess inventory, it is the

recognizable increase in sales that

is their main attraction to manage-

ment, which is therefore reluctant

to abandon this strategy despite

its effect on the bottom line.

Here is my problem:

Q5:

The passage suggests that evidence for price promotions’ “effect on the bottom line” (line 40) is provided by

1. the lack of lingering aftereffects from price promotions
2. the frequency with which price promotions occur
3. price promotions’ inability to attract new customers
4. price promotions’ recognizable effect on sales
5. the legitimate uses to which management can put price can put price promotions

1. the lack of lingering aftereffects from price promotions
2. the frequency with which price promotions occur
3. price promotions’ inability to attract new customers
4. price promotions’ recognizable effect on sales
5. the legitimate uses to which management can put price can put price promotions

The answer is B; however, after reading the second paragraph again, i think that the answer D.

             >>> second paragraph>>>>>>>

                 

                So why do companies spend so

much on price promotions?  Clearly

price promotions are generally run

at a loss, otherwise there would

 (30)        be more of them.  And the bigger

the increase in sales at promotion

prices, the bigger the loss.  While

        short-term price promotions can

have legitimate uses, such as

(35)         reducing excess inventory, it is the

recognizable increase in sales that

is their main attraction to manage-

ment, which is therefore reluctant

to abandon this strategy despite

its effect on the bottom line.

Here is my thought:

If we go back to the passage which mentions " effect on the bottom line", I find out that the sentecen mentions that "recognizable increase in sales" is  the attraction  to management( This sentece implies the relation between R' and effect B'  ). Therefore, it is logical to refer that "recognizable increase"  causes " the effect of the price promotion" working, so "recognizable increase " is evidence and also is the answer for the question.

I am confused about  the answer. can some mm tell me why D is answer? or is there  anything wrong with my analysis?

much on price promotions?  Clearly

price promotions are generally run

at a loss, otherwise there would

 (30)        be more of them.  And the bigger

the increase in sales at promotion

prices, the bigger the loss.  While

        short-term price promotions can

have legitimate uses, such as

(35)         reducing excess inventory, it is the

recognizable increase in sales that

is their main attraction to manage-

ment, which is therefore reluctant

to abandon this strategy despite

its effect on the bottom line.

Here is my thought:

If we go back to the passage which mentions " effect on the bottom line", I find out that the sentecen mentions that "recognizable increase in sales" is  the attraction  to management( This sentece implies the relation between R' and effect B'  ). Therefore, it is logical to refer that "recognizable increase"  causes " the effect of the price promotion" working, so "recognizable increase " is evidence and also is the answer for the question.

I am confused about  the answer. can some mm tell me why D is answer? or is there  anything wrong with my analysis?

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-6-25 6:37:51编辑过]

goodmaneri

This CR is from GWD 4- the first reading passage:

 

Extensive research has shown
      

        that the effects of short-term price

        promotions on sales are themselves

Line
     short-term.  Companies’ hopes that

  (5)        promotions might have a positive

aftereffect have not been borne

out for reasons that researchers

have been able to identify.  A price

promotion entices only a brand’s

 (10)        long-term or “loyal” customers;

people seldom buy an unfamiliar

brand merely because the price is

reduced.  They simply avoid paying

more than they have to when one of

 (15)        their customary brands is temporar-

ily available at a reduced price.  A

price promotion does not increase

the number of long-term customers

of a brand, as it attracts virtually

 (20)        no new customers in the first place.

        Nor do price promotions have linger-

        ing aftereffects for a brand, even

negative ones such as damage to

a brand’s reputation or erosion of

 (25)      customer loyalty, as is often feared.

      So why do companies spend so

much on price promotions?  Clearly

price promotions are generally run

at a loss, otherwise there would

 (30)        be more of them.  And the bigger

the increase in sales at promotion

prices, the bigger the loss.  While

        short-term price promotions can

have legitimate uses, such as

(35)         reducing excess inventory, it is the

recognizable increase in sales that

is their main attraction to manage-

ment, which is therefore reluctant

to abandon this strategy despite

its effect on the bottom line.

Here is my problem:

Q5:

The passage suggests that evidence for price promotions’ “effect on the bottom line” (line 40) is provided by
     

1. the lack of lingering aftereffects from price promotions
2. the frequency with which price promotions occur
3. price promotions’ inability to attract new customers
4. price promotions’ recognizable effect on sales
5. the legitimate uses to which management can put price can put price promotion

1. the lack of lingering aftereffects from price promotions
2. the frequency with which price promotions occur
3. price promotions’ inability to attract new customers
4. price promotions’ recognizable effect on sales
5. the legitimate uses to which management can put price can put price promotion

 

The answer is B; however, after reading the second paragraph again, i think that the answer D.

             

                     >>> second paragraph>>>>>>>

                 

                So why do companies spend so
            much on price promotions?  Clearly

price promotions are generally run

at a loss, otherwise there would

 (30)        be more of them.  And the bigger

the increase in sales at promotion

prices, the bigger the loss.  While

        short-term price promotions can

have legitimate uses, such as

(35)         reducing excess inventory, it is the

recognizable increase in sales that

is their main attraction to manage-

ment, which is therefore reluctant

to abandon this strategy despite

its effect on the bottom line.

Here is my thought:

 

If we go back to the passage which mentions " effect on the bottom line", I find out that the sentecen mentions that "recognizable increase in sales" is  the attraction  to management( This sentece implies the relation between R' and effect B'  ). Therefore, it is logical to refer that "recognizable increase"  causes " the effect of the price promotion" working, so "recognizable increase " is evidence and also is the answer for the question.

I am confused about  the answer. can some mm tell me why D is answer? or is there  anything wrong with my analysis ?

price promotions are generally run

at a loss, otherwise there would

 (30)        be more of them.  And the bigger

the increase in sales at promotion

prices, the bigger the loss.  While

        short-term price promotions can

have legitimate uses, such as

(35)         reducing excess inventory, it is the

recognizable increase in sales that

is their main attraction to manage-

ment, which is therefore reluctant

to abandon this strategy despite

its effect on the bottom line.

Here is my thought:

 

If we go back to the passage which mentions " effect on the bottom line", I find out that the sentecen mentions that "recognizable increase in sales" is  the attraction  to management( This sentece implies the relation between R' and effect B'  ). Therefore, it is logical to refer that "recognizable increase"  causes " the effect of the price promotion" working, so "recognizable increase " is evidence and also is the answer for the question.

I am confused about  the answer. can some mm tell me why D is answer? or is there  anything wrong with my analysis ?

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-6-25 6:42:33编辑过]

sen4sun

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=25&ID=181239