求教NN 2道prep 1道gwd!!没几天就去考了!!!先谢NN了!

woailixuan1990

15.(25986-!-item-!-188;#058&002914)

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   我的答案是E
我的思路是：因为前期的降价，公司虽然排挤了竞争对手，但是也遭受了损失。   后来为了弥补之前的损失，就会提价，但是竞争对手又会随之而来. 所以这个方法不可取.
但是如果，如E所说，客流量的增多了。那么我觉得客流量增多可以弥补降价的亏损，那么公司说不定就不用提价了，竞争对手也不会有机可乘. 削弱了“会有竞争对手的出现” 另外，我觉得C也差不多说了这个意思.

再看一下B  B的意思是说 高层认为一个愿意以降价为排挤竞争者为手段的公司，以后还有可能再降价去排挤对手.  这对于"是否会有对手冒出来“又有什么关系呢？？？？？？

并且我不太明白的是 我到底应该削弱文中的哪句话呢？？是However, this method of eliminating competition cannot be profitable in the long run. 么？  因为这句话看起来更像结论。    还是说”会有竞争者再次出现“？？？？？？

balapupu

”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.“文章要削弱的是这句话：任何弥补亏损的提价措施，都会使竞争者有机可乘。所以显然，削弱是没机可乘~~~就是B，竞争者降价，我们也会降价，所以就没有机会了。但是E，仅仅是价格减少，乘客增加，和攻击结论没有直接的关系。你那个说不定公司就不用提价什么的，完全是你自己假设的前提，画蛇添足了~

woailixuan1990

TTGWD-14-40
Q40:
Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been available.  arents are reluctant to subject children to the pain of injections, but adults, who are at risk of serious complications from influenza, are commonly vaccinated.  A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children.  However, since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza, no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A.    Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.
B.    The new vaccine uses the same mechanism to ward off influenza as jnjectable vaccines do.
C.    The injectable vaccine is affordable for all adults.
D.    Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
E.    The nasal spray vaccine is mot effective when administered to adults.
 Answer: D

我选的是E   E里边mot应该是NOT吧？  如果是这样的话，取非D之后，就是新疫苗对成人也有效。 这不就削弱了 no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray 么？  即便小孩会传染成人，但是成人有疫苗，成人还是不会得流感或者得并发症的。    


谢谢大家了！！！！！！

woailixuan1990

”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.“文章要削弱的是这句话：任何弥补亏损的提价措施，都会使竞争者有机可乘。所以显然，削弱是没机可乘~~~就是B，竞争者降价，我们也会降价，所以就没有机会了。但是E，仅仅是价格减少，乘客增加，和攻击结论没有直接的关系。你那个说不定公司就不用提价什么的，完全是你自己假设的前提，画蛇添足了~

-- by 会员 balapupu (2011/10/6 16:46:07)

哦 NN你的意思是：公司已经必然会提价了。  是么？（因为题目问的就是any attempt to recoup the earlier losses会造成什么结果）  但还是感觉B有点别扭....但为什么不可能是后来的竞争者也降价,最后反而把这个先降价的公司挤跑了呢.....  NN我错了  我总是想多.....

woailixuan1990

TTGWD-14-40
Q40:
Until now, only injectable vaccines against influenza have been available.  arents are reluctant to subject children to the pain of injections, but adults, who are at risk of serious complications from influenza, are commonly vaccinated.  A new influenza vaccine, administered painlessly in a nasal spray, is effective for children.  However, since children seldom develop serious complications from influenza, no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A.    Any person who has received the injectable vaccine can safely receive the nasal-spray vaccine as well.
B.    The new vaccine uses the same mechanism to ward off influenza as jnjectable vaccines do.
C.    The injectable vaccine is affordable for all adults.
D.    Adults do not contract influenza primarily from children who have influenza.
E.    The nasal spray vaccine is mot effective when administered to adults.
 Answer: D

我选的是E   E里边mot应该是NOT吧？  如果是这样的话，取非D之后，就是新疫苗对成人也有效。 这不就削弱了 no significant public health benefit would result from widespread vaccination of children using the nasal spray 么？  即便小孩会传染成人，但是成人有疫苗，成人还是不会得流感或者得并发症的。    


谢谢大家了！！！！！！

-- by 会员 woailixuan1990 (2011/10/6 16:47:20)

哪位N大人可以解释一下这个呢...我的想法哪里出现问题了》。xiexie!

balapupu

”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.“文章要削弱的是这句话：任何弥补亏损的提价措施，都会使竞争者有机可乘。所以显然，削弱是没机可乘~~~就是B，竞争者降价，我们也会降价，所以就没有机会了。但是E，仅仅是价格减少，乘客增加，和攻击结论没有直接的关系。你那个说不定公司就不用提价什么的，完全是你自己假设的前提，画蛇添足了~

-- by 会员 balapupu (2011/10/6 16:46:07)

哦 NN你的意思是：公司已经必然会提价了。  是么？（因为题目问的就是any attempt to recoup the earlier losses会造成什么结果）  但还是感觉B有点别扭....但为什么不可能是后来的竞争者也降价,最后反而把这个先降价的公司挤跑了呢.....  NN我错了  我总是想多.....

-- by 会员 woailixuan1990 (2011/10/6 16:58:15)

是的~~正确答案的意识就是~后来的竞争者降价，先前降价的公司会也跟着降价~~~

balapupu

。。。。。。觉得LZ想象力真的很丰富。。。
关于你的第二题，就按你的想法来说，取非E选项，新疫苗对成人有效。但是注意，文章已经说了~无痛的新疫苗是针对孩子的~文章的结论在于普遍的给儿童推广新疫苗对于全民健康的改善是无效的。没有说给成人推广新疫苗。这已经完全和结论不搭界了。

woailixuan1990

。。。。。。觉得LZ想象力真的很丰富。。。
关于你的第二题，就按你的想法来说，取非E选项，新疫苗对成人有效。但是注意，文章已经说了~无痛的新疫苗是针对孩子的~文章的结论在于普遍的给儿童推广新疫苗对于全民健康的改善是无效的。没有说给成人推广新疫苗。这已经完全和结论不搭界了。

-- by 会员 balapupu (2011/10/6 18:53:44)

好的 我明白了 真的很感谢你  解释的很清晰. xiexie！