一道support 题目，求解释A选项

jasminerocks

30. 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.



对题目的理解没有问题，可是对答案A选项的理解有些模糊

ccronaldo

政府从承包商那买军火 价格是军火商定的 要加几个百分点卖 这样才能赚钱
问题是哪个能作为这种听起来挺划算的卖法的评定判定
a就是政府还得继续花冤枉钱 因此政府既然决定继续买 就说明这个定价策略是好的

jasminerocks

政府从承包商那买军火 价格是军火商定的 要加几个百分点卖 这样才能赚钱
问题是哪个能作为这种听起来挺划算的卖法的评定判定
a就是政府还得继续花冤枉钱 因此政府既然决定继续买 就说明这个定价策略是好的

-- by 会员 ccronaldo (2011/8/23 9:31:09)

A中都说了是inefficient use了，但是政府还决定继续购买，说明这样的pricing 方法是好的？？？

ccronaldo

题目中是for military contracts 对于军火承包商来说当然是好了 政府愿意继续做冤大头他们怎么会不开心呢 但是我就是在想这个criticism的含义 一般来说是批评 挑错 但是在这题当中好像是评判 是个中性的

myaska

这题不是加强吧，应该是削弱，问你站在以下哪个的基础上能够削弱这个所谓的economically sound pricing method。我就是没懂这里funds是什么意思。军费开支叫funds?