[求助]大全-5-14

Ville

这道题在大全的讨论帖中没有找到链接

The price the government pays for standard weapons purchased from military contractors is determined by a pricing method called “historical costing.” Historical costing allows contractors to protect their profits by adding a percentage increase, based on the current rate of inflation, to the previous year’s contractual price.
Which of the following statements, if true, is the best basis for a criticism of historical costing as an economically sound pricing method for military contracts?
(A) The government might continue to pay for past inefficient use of funds.
(B) The rate of inflation has varied considerably over the past twenty years.
(C) The contractual price will be greatly affected by the cost of materials used for the products.
(D) Many taxpayers question the amount of money the government spends on military contracts.
(E) The pricing method based on historical costing might not encourage the development of innovative weapons.

答案是A，请问A是如何削弱historical costing政策呢？
A中说政府可能会继续付不必要的费用，对于武器供应商来说应该是有利的呀，为什么是削弱呢？

mbz

The argument is based on the government's and people's points of view, but not the contractors. The contractors are individual companies, maybe  private companies inside the nation, or maybe companies from other countries. The author doesn't care about them.

Ville

以下是引用mbz在2006-8-4 22:43:00的发言：
The argument is based on the government's and people's points of view, but not the contractors. The contractors are individual companies, maybe  private companies inside the nation, or maybe companies from other countries. The author doesn't care about them.

不好意思，请问
Which of the following statements, if true, is the best basis for a criticism of historical costing as an economically sound pricing method for military contracts?
这个问题为什么不是基于military contracts的角度来考虑呢？
问题是否应该理解为：哪个选项是批判“historical costing对于military contracts来说是有益的”这个观点的基础。
我觉得就是要找到能够说明historical costing对于military contracts来说不是有益的那个选项。
这个思考方向是否正确？

mbz

Ah, actually, I took it a little bit too seriously.

The fact is, it doesn't really matter from whose point of view. The conclusion is to support the criticism of historical costing as an economically sound pricing method. If the price doesn't reflect the fair market value as for now, it is not a good price. That's it.

Ville

以下是引用mbz在2006-8-5 2:48:00的发言：

Ah, actually, I took it a little bit too seriously.

The fact is, it doesn't really matter from whose point of view. The conclusion is to support the criticism of historical costing as an economically sound pricing method. If the price doesn't reflect the fair market value as for now, it is not a good price. That's it.

明白了，非常感谢！