GWD1-Q36 大家进来帮忙看看

mashengyi

原文： In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny is typically limited to suppliers of items that are directly related to end products. With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships” (arrangements in which the purchaser forgoes the right to pursue alternative suppliers), which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny that might afford the purchaser economic leverage.  There are two independent variables—availability of alternatives and ease of changing suppliers—that companies should use to evaluate the feasibility of subjecting suppliers of indirect purchases to competitive scrutiny. This can create four possible situations.
     In Type 1 situations, there are many alternatives and change is relatively easy.  Open pursuit of alternatives—by frequent competitive bidding, if possible—will 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 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 the ability to switch is constrained. In Type 3 situations, there are few alternatives, but the ability to switch without difficulty creates a threat that companies can use to negotiate concessions from existing suppliers. In Type 4 situations, where there are few alternatives and change is difficult, partnerships may be unavoidable.
  GWD1-Q36


Which of the following can be inferred about supplier partnerships, as they are described in the passage?
A.      They cannot be sustained unless the goods or services provided are available from a large number of suppliers.
B.       They can result in purchasers paying more for goods and services than they would in a competitive-bidding situation.
C.      They typically are instituted at the urging of the supplier rather than the purchaser.
D.      They are not feasible when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers’ end products.？？？？
E.       They are least appropriate when the purchasers’ ability to change suppliers is limited.
答案是选B很多网友觉得选D  我觉得E  原因是：答案选B  网上说的是因为有个leverage 这里 所以就付出的多了 首先OG上说了不需要背景知识 如果只从leverage就退出B的话 那杠杆效应有正面也有负面的啊 为什么不说。 对于D选项 我当初也是徘徊在DE之间 但是分析后发现在文中只在indirect里面提到这个

supplier partnerships，并没有提到在direct里面不行 退一步说 对于direct来说 文章说说的只是limited to suppliers限制一部分供应商 也并没有提到在这些供应商里面就没有supplier partnership。  我选择E  虽然很多人说E和文章意思相反 但是我理解的是(不要YY 从文章找)There are two independent variables—availabilityof alternatives and ease of changing suppliers  说明如果change suppliers is limited  那么就会像direct的情况一样不合适。  其实这里我觉得E选项对D选项就是起一个补充的关系，D太绝对 用的是not feasible 而E用的是least感觉上会好一些

清飞扬

LZ是从程度上来做题的，就是基于“凡是都不绝对”的态度来做题。可是GMAT的RC是必须基于原文来做题的，根据原文的信息和逻辑来做题，不是自己瞎推的，如果原文是绝对性的说，那么就选绝对性的答案。如果原文是说mayxxx（这种模糊性的用词），那么你绝对不能选must/will这种表达

我偏向选D，因为这个内容根据原文定位为 With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships” (arrangements in which the purchaser forgoes the right to pursue alternative suppliers), which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny that might afford the purchaser economic leverage

题目是让：inferred about supplier partnerships
所以把原文信息肢解开来就是：
1. With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships”
提供的信息是：“supplier partnerships”是针对indirect purchase，也就是are not directly related to production，这个时候就often favor，“supplier partnerships”。所以可以infer的是，如果是direct related to production,则就不是indirect purchase,且不会favor supplier partnerships

2. “supplier partnerships” (arrangements in which the purchaser forgoes the right to pursue alternative suppliers), which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny that might afford the purchaser economic leverage----用which的表达做非限制性定从，从SC中可以知道是修饰supplier partnerships的，告诉你这个是个什么东西。---这里说的是：can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny ，而这个competitive scrutiny是（MIGHT  might afford the purchaser economic leverage)

所以根据以上的信息，比较下来是D最好了。 They are not feasible when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers’ end products.是可以从上面说的1#点infer出来的

相比B点：They can result in purchasers paying more for goods and services than they would in a competitive-bidding situation.看似很相关，但是我觉得太过绝对。can result in xxx than they would(相当于绝对行了，和原文的MIGHT的表达不对应一致）

至于E，想问下LZ，原文由关于人和的信息能够支持：purchasers’ ability to change suppliers is limited的这个表达和说法吗？请用CR的思路来思考这个问题

fanofkaka

盗墓一下

我选了D 现在觉得B也对
求NN 指点

zd5335

我选的是D，现在觉得应该是B. 文中说With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships” (arrangements in which the purchaser forgoes the right to pursue alternative suppliers), which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny that might afford the purchaser economic leverage
文中说的是 corporations often favor “supplier partnerships”，而选项D.  是 They are not feasible。我觉得在direct的环境下也是可行的但是并不会有很多公司偏爱，使用。
B更确切一下。

keanzhao

zd5335 发表于 2014-10-31 16:48
我选的是D，现在觉得应该是B. 文中说With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and l ...

infer题是基于原文的，
In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny is typically limited to suppliers of items that are directly related to end products. With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships” (arrangements in which the purchaser forgoes the right to pursue alternative suppliers), which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny that might afford the purchaser economic leverage.  

红字清楚的表达通常情况，但没有说绝对，所以D错。 而蓝字说明由于采购商是用供应商合作伙伴而有肯能使该供应商避免激烈的竞争这个暗示的就是这个供应商的价格肯能高于在激励bidding下的价格，从而伤害采购商。

臭老蚊

存疑，我选的d，nn们说完觉得d不对了，但我觉得b也很牵强

MissWang_xx929

个人认为B选项里的 can 不是绝对的表达，而是表示可能

Rabbit_Carrot

MissWang_xx929 发表于 2017-1-17 00:41
个人认为B选项里的 can 不是绝对的表达，而是表示可能

同意！               

MikaT

Rabbit_Carrot 发表于 2017-1-22 05:02
同意！

同意！