Prep－2－15疑问：讨论区看了半天也没有明白

jasdesky

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.

用有关无关法蒙对了B。但是实在想不明白这题——这题的Argument到底是什么？

是"However, this method of eliminating competition cannot be profitable in the long run"这句话，还是什么。

我怎么觉得B推了半天，结果就是大家都降价，那怎么能实现long term profitable呢？

脑子又转不了弯了，请大家提醒一下啊

多谢

gmat_cxl

hello,

please see http://bbs..org/dispbbs.asp?boardid=40&id=130890

cecila

B？我觉得应该选E呢？Passages * price = total income

gonghao

主要是看懂文章啊

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.

一些航空公司通过对一些航线来通过亏本经营来消除竞争。但是，通过降价来消除竞争的方法是不能的得到长期的利润的。一旦航空公司成功的执行了这个方法（竞争者消失了），当航空公司希望通过重新在之前降价的航线上charge高的费用（来收回之前牺牲的利润）会提供了竞争者一个机会来降低他们的费用（即竞争者又出现了）

weaken

降过一次价的航空公司会在其他竞争者出现的时候再降一次价

一些航空公司通过对一些航线来通过亏本经营来消除竞争。但是，通过降价来消除竞争的方法是不能的得到长期的利润的。一旦航空公司成功的执行了这个方法（竞争者消失了），当航空公司希望通过重新在之前降价的航线上charge高的费用（来收回之前牺牲的利润）会提供了竞争者一个机会来降低他们的费用（即竞争者又出现了）

weaken

降过一次价的航空公司会在其他竞争者出现的时候再降一次价

dongjunh

同问，为什么E不对呢~？

ay13254

E说的是航班一旦降价 此航班客人会increase 表明赔的钱更多 （因为 passengers* 每个人赔的钱=总赔钱数。。。。。。）这当然不是profitable了 而是support了原文

这还不是重要的

文章问的是in the long run  E说的是 降价的时候的事 不是long run 所以是无关选项

么么哒不能乱用

B选项：因为\ceo都认为一旦有竞争者再次出现，这家公司会再次降价，所以竞争者们就不再愿意去该航线竞争。
推出：既然竞争不再存在，该公司可以通过占领航线后提价盈利。

17inWonderland

想了一下，选E的uu们应该是像我一样认为“薄利多销”了，但忽略了薄利多销的前提是有利可图。现在已经在亏本销售了，总亏损=每个乘客导致的亏损*乘客数，乘客增加只会导致亏本更严重，反而加强了论证；还看到有其他解释说因为“价低能带来更多乘客”， 所以竞争对手看到后都会回到这个航线，反而会吸引竞争对手，也加强了论证。