老prep cr2 15

miffyhui

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?
In some countries it is not illegal for a company to drive away competitors by selling a product below cost.


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.



As part of promotions designed to attract new customers, airlines sometimes reduce their ticket prices to below an economically sustainable level.无关

On deciding to stop serving particular routes, most airlines shift resources to other routes rather than reduce the size of their operations.


When airlines dramatically reduce their fares on a particular route, the total number of air passengers on that route increases greatly.




还是不明白呀！虽然其他几个选项不对，但是还是不理解选项B为什么是对的，我认为长期来说价格战还是无用的，高价驱赶竞争者以后，航空公司难以以高价弥补损失，因为一旦他们抬高价格，新的竞争者会降价，所以只能一直保持低价，反复这样做的结果只能无利可言。

sdcar2010

Read the stimulus again and find out its premises and conclusion.

The premise:
When the airline tries to recoup the cost of previouse price dreduction, it provides competitors with a better opportunity to undercut the airline's fares.

The conclusion is: this method of eliminating competition (by undercutting airfares) cannot be profitable in the long run.

If B) is true, then a company that once underpriced its fares to drive away competitors is very likely to do so again if new competitors emerge. If so, the assumption used by the author -if a competitor has an opportunity to win, it will win- is wrong. Thus, B) is the weakener.

iamdby

Read the stimulus again and find out its premises and conclusion.

The premise:
When the airline tries to recoup the cost of previouse price dreduction, it provides competitors with a better opportunity to undercut the airline's fares.

The conclusion is: this method of eliminating competition (by undercutting airfares) cannot be profitable in the long run.

If B) is true, then a company that once underpriced its fares to drive away competitors is very likely to do so again if new competitors emerge. If so, the assumption used by the author -if a competitor has an opportunity to win, it will win- is wrong. Thus, B) is the weakener.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2012/3/10 13:43:33)

LS的意思是削弱的是ASSUMPTION而不是CONCLUSION?

sdcar2010

An assumption is a critical part to support a conclusion. If you weaken the former, you weaken the latter.

奶牛316

sdcar的解释的确是一种思路，我们在做这道题的时候代入的是自己的premise，而没有在用author的premise进行逻辑推理