prep2-15 prep2-58

carriehappy99

    

15.   

    

Some airlines allegedly reduce fares on certain
routes to a level at which they lose money, in order to drive competitors off
those routes.  However, this method of
eliminating competition cannot be profitable in the long run.  Once an airline successfully implements this
method, any attempt to recoup the earlier losses by charging high fares on that
route for an extended period would only provide competitors with a better
opportunity to undercut the airline's fares.

    

 Which of the following, if true, most seriously
weakens the argument?

    

 (A) In some countries it is not illegal for a
company to drive away competitors by selling a product below cost.

    

(B) Airline executives generally believe that a
company that once underpriced its fares to drive away competitors is very
likely to do so again if new competitors emerge.

    

(C) As part of promotions designed to attract new
customers, airlines sometimes reduce their ticket prices to below an
economically sustainable level.

    

(D) On deciding to stop serving particular routes,
most airlines shift resources to other routes rather than reduce the size of
their operations.

    

(E) When airlines dramatically reduce their fares
on a particular route, the total number of air passengers on that route
increases greatly.

答案是B,  原文说价格一旦回涨就会给其他竞争者削价的机会。D貌似也可以阿，因为竞争者已经把资源用在别处，所以不可能再回来竞争了


    

58.  (33711-!-item-!-188;#058&007588)

    

 

    

The proposal to hire ten new police officers in
Middletown is quite foolish.  There is
sufficient funding to pay the salaries of the new officers, but not the
salaries of additional court and prison employees to process the increased
caseload of arrests and convictions that new officers usually generate.
                

    

Which of the following, if true, will most
seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

    

 (A) Studies have shown that an increase in a
city's police force does not necessarily reduce crime.

    

(B) When one major city increased its police force
by 19 percent last year, there were 40 percent more arrests and 13 percent more
convictions.

    

(C) If funding for the new police officers'
salaries is approved, support for other city services will have to be reduced
during the next fiscal year.

    

(D) In most United States cities, not all arrests
result in convictions, and not all convictions result in prison terms.

    

(E) Middletown's ratio of police officers to
citizens has reached a level at which an increase in the number of officers
will have a deterrent effect on crime.

答案是E。应该是c吧。

lqn0621

15题

weaken 的应该是 provide competitors with a better opportunity to undercut the airline's fares.  这个结论。

只有B 提供了 new competitors不会 emerge的理由，就是competitors的executives generally believe 曾经用降价手段的company 极有可能再次用这个手段，那这个 new competitors 就有可能再一次被drive competitors off those routes。

觉得d应该是无关，与 降价、重返该route都没有关系 

愚见愚见

lqn0621

第二题是这样的 M城新招十个警察，虽说给这十个警察的工资的钱有

但是付给（处理由此产生多出来的逮捕审讯）的法院监狱人员的additional salaries 没有。

问weaken

再看题的时候，脑子里反映出来，line of reasoning 里面蕴含一个assumption

就是 多出来的十个警察一定会增加 犯罪的破获率罪犯的逮捕率

如果取非，就是weaken的正确答案

开始误选d 但是发现most cities这个表达不对，太模糊，

最后确定e 只是上文说的假设的另外一种说法。

即 现在的将警察这么多，已经起到了抑制犯罪的作用，犯罪率不会增加了。

也就是说不会带来更多的conviction和arrests。起到了削弱作用。

 

lqn0621

c选项应该完全无关

lz是怎么理解的？

carriehappy99

Sorry,看错了，我是要支持d的

58题：proposal要招新警察。 反对：因为没有钱招相应的court和prison员工。
  题目要weaken的应该是反对而不是proposal吧。
    D说明招了新警察不一定需要增加相应court和prison员工，不正是weaken吗
   E说的是新警察对crime有deterrent作用，反对的是proposal阿

jhtcherry

15题，我也选了D，模考时一看到“ Airline executives generally believe that ” 就以为是诉诸权威，想也没想就排出了~

D的问题是不是出在红色这个部分？
(D) On deciding to stop serving particular routes, most airlines shift resources to other routes rather than reduce the size of their operations.
如果改成On deciding to stop serving particular routes, most airlines shift resources to other routes so that it costs a lot to return.
                （表达得不太好） 就对了？

此外B算不算诉诸权威？？

pdsb

诉诸权威？xdf教的吧，所谓的规则都不是一定的。D是无关吧，自己想太多了。

题说的是降价把对手赶走了，会不会趁着他降完价后提价的时候对手降价来竞争呢？B的意思是航空公司的头头都知道一个这么狠的公司再遇到竞争的时候还是会这么狠的，言下之意是竞争对手被吓得不太可能出现，就是反对了题目的结论，简单明了直接。

D拐弯抹角说了一大堆，题目说的是竞争的问题，D就很不直接。

首先，题目说的这种方法是 drive competitors off those routes，然后又说this method of eliminating competition，意思是这种方法是把对手赶走，让对手滚蛋。一旦Once an airline successfully implements this method，就是成功让对手滚蛋了。D说缩小规模不是没意义吗，都已经滚蛋了还缩小什么规模阿。

然后，你怎么知道资源移走了就没竞争了，一旦先前降价的那家公司提价了，他们不会回来吗，反正都是飞机，改个航线不麻烦，况且是以前飞过的航线。

你只需要关心竞争对手会不会回来，答案越直接越好。至于他们走了是去别的航线还是缩小规模还是回家生孩子去了，都不是你该关心的。

题目的结论是别的对手会不会出来用低价竞争，你就把思维集中在这就行了。你要是非要去想对手滚蛋了之后去干嘛，那不是自找苦吃吗

逻辑题是没那么大空间给你自己想象的。

rucky521

58.为什么D不对呢？

tobytao

我做题的时候反而觉得B是strengthen这个argument。

题目中的结论应该是“这个方法长期来看是not profitable的”，如果按B的说法，一有竞争者加入就降价(a rate which they lose money,前文提到),那么长期来看确实是没法make profit。

D就是大部分航空公司会转移资源（飞别的航线去了）而不是缩减该航线的规模，就是说没人来竞争了，那么profit自然就有了喽。（当然，也不是很严谨，in long run they probably would come back)

**************************************************************************

再想了想，或许B应该理解为 － 其他航空公司都怕了这些爱搞价格战的同行了，晓得就算进来竞争也会被价格战打退，所以干脆就不来了。

反正觉得这题出得不咋的，呵呵。

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/10/11 14:12:41编辑过]

zanyingsan

15题我觉得反对的点应该集中在  this method of eliminating competition cannot
be profitable in the long run 的in the long run 上。

B说专家相信一旦降价可以消除竞争对手，并且这种方法同样对于一个新加入的竞争者适用。那么意思就是说这种方法可以长期实行，于是也就weaken了结论。