ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 9350|回复: 18
打印 上一主题 下一主题

GWD1-36

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-8-25 02:11:00 | 只看该作者

GWD1-36

  In corporate purchasing,


       competitive scrutiny is typically


       limited to suppliers of items that are


Line directly related to end products.(商业现象:在购买终端产品,审查限制供应商)


  (5)      With “indirect” purchases (such as


computers, advertising, and legal


services), which are not directly


related to production, corporations


often favor “supplier partnerships”


(10)      (arrangements in which the


purchaser forgoes the right to


pursue alternative suppliers), which


can inappropriately shelter suppliers


from rigorous competitive scrutiny


(15)      that might afford the purchaser


economic leverage. (在购买不是终端产品时,SP可免审查) There are two


independent variables—availability


of alternatives and ease of changing


suppliers—that companies should


(20)      use to evaluate the feasibility of


       subjecting suppliers of indirect


       purchases to competitive scrutiny.(两个变量:有无其它选择/是否容易另选供应商)


This can create four possible


situations.


(25)       In Type 1 situations, there are


many alternatives and change is


relatively easy.  Open pursuit of


alternatives—by frequent com-


petitive bidding, if possible—will


(30)      likely yield the best results.  In


Type 2 situations, where there


are many alternatives but change


       is difficult—as for providers of


employee health-care benefits—it


(35)     is important to continuously test


the market and use the results to


secure concessions from existing


suppliers.  Alternatives provide a


      credible threat to suppliers, even if


(40)     the ability to switch is constrained.


In Type 3 situations, there ate few


alternatives, but the ability to switch


without difficulty creates a threat that


companies can use to negotiate


(45)      concessions from existing suppliers.


In Type 4 situations, where there


are few alternatives and change


is difficult, partnerships may be


unavoidable.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q36:


Which of the following can be inferred about supplier partnerships, as they are described in the passage? infer


              



  • They cannot be sustained unless the goods or services provided are available from a large number of suppliers.

  • They can result in purchasers paying more for goods and services than they would in a competitive-bidding situation.


  • corporations


    often favor “supplier partnerships”


    (10)      (arrangements in which the


    purchaser forgoes the right to


    pursue alternative suppliers), which


    can inappropriately shelter suppliers


    from rigorous competitive scrutiny


    (15)      that might afford the purchaser


    economic leverage.



  • They typically are instituted at the urging of the supplier rather than the purchaser.无关比较点


  • They are not feasible when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers’ end products.

  • They are least appropriate when the purchasers’ ability to change suppliers is limited.没有绝对化概念


  • B是答案 请问D为何不对


    因为原文中 1-15行讲到 购买终端产品 供应商要审查 购买不是终端的产品 供应商用SP 免审查



    谢谢


    沙发
    发表于 2004-8-25 06:36:00 | 只看该作者

    今天刚好检讨昨天的模考.....cc

    在原文中L5-L9讲到With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor "supplier partnerships"

    但这里只讲述那些indirect的东东通常用SP, 但原文没讲到direct东东的情形, 所以我们不能推导(D)

    而(B)是L9-L16的取非改写.......

    板凳
     楼主| 发表于 2004-8-25 07:50:00 | 只看该作者

    狗狗


    难道不能理解为direct end product如何 即可推出非direct end product 如何吗


    是不是只能在unlike/ contrary to 之类的词句下 我们才能这样取非


    我的思路有点悬啊


    狗狗 加油

    地板
    发表于 2004-8-25 09:46:00 | 只看该作者
    以下是引用paopao在2004-8-25 7:50:00的发言:

    狗狗


    难道不能理解为direct end product如何 即可推出非direct end product 如何吗


    是不是只能在unlike/ contrary to 之类的词句下 我们才能这样取非


    我的思路有点悬啊


    狗狗 加油



    其实我当初也是选这个(D), 后来看一下, 还真的是(B)......


    我们再看看(D)They are not feasible when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers’ end products


    我觉得这个not字也很绝对,


    其实这些可推可不推OG里面的文章都有, 我想我们还要再揣摹揣摩.....

    5#
     楼主| 发表于 2004-8-25 09:58:00 | 只看该作者
    以下是引用vincent0330在2004-8-25 9:46:00的发言:



    其实这些可推可不推OG里面的文章都有, 我想我们还要再揣摹揣摩.....


    狗狗说得对

    真是需要好好再体会

    6#
    发表于 2004-8-25 10:14:00 | 只看该作者
    which

    can inappropriately shelter suppliers

    from rigorous competitive scrutiny

    (15)      that might afford the purchaser

    economic leverage.

    请问这句话怎么理解?economic leverage什么意思?

    7#
    发表于 2004-8-25 20:44:00 | 只看该作者

    economic leverage

    经济杠杆作用, 就好像文中探讨了, supplier有竞争则supplier价钱降低, purchaser可以讨价还价

    杠杆作用可以用在很多地方....., 像股票交易, 期货交易, 甚至贷款都算是经济杠杆的一种....

    8#
     楼主| 发表于 2004-8-26 01:48:00 | 只看该作者
    以下是引用LES在2004-8-25 10:14:00的发言:
    which


    can inappropriately shelter suppliers



    from rigorous competitive scrutiny



    (15)      that might afford the purchaser



    economic leverage.


    请问这句话怎么理解?economic leverage什么意思?



    LES 这句话的意思是SP使供货方免受审查 而审查能给购买方带来经济上的好处 意思是会便宜点
    9#
    发表于 2004-8-27 20:48:00 | 只看该作者
    明白了谢谢狗狗和泡泡!
    10#
    发表于 2004-8-31 03:06:00 | 只看该作者

    I think the key word in this question is the "favor" in L9. By using "favor," the author implies that it is possible to use the supplier partnership in either direct purchases or indirect purchases.


    Choice D says that the partnership is not feasible in direct purchases, but if we take the word "favor" into consideration, we can see that it is indeed feasible to use supplier partnership in the case of direct purchase, companies just don't use it for whatever reasons.

    您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

    Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

    手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-23 03:46
    京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

    ChaseDream 论坛

    © 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

    返回顶部