[悦读] 伍月肆日悦读寂静整理（共52只，5/30-23:20更新）

Taylor小熊

给力给力~阅读狗狗

colinkelly

楼主，找到20题的意思原文，请鉴定
20传统成本会计
Virtually all manufacturing companies use their inventory valuation
systems to measure product costs. As discussed earlier, this system,
in today's environment of large indirect expenses and product diversity,
produces highly distorted product costs. Service companies, who
have not had to assign expenses to their products for financial statement
purposes, have operated for decades without knowing product
costs. They collected costs in functional or responsibility categories
but made little effort to assign accurately their operating expenses to
their products and customers.
At its simplest level, product cost distortions occur in virtually all
organizations producing and selling multiple products. An example
provides a simple illustration of the sources of the distortion. Consider
two factories, both malung pens using identical capital equipment and
physical facilities. Plant I is a focused producer that manufactures
only blue pens, 1.000.000 units per year. Plant I1 is a full line producer.
In addition to producing blue pens, (100.000 per year), it produces
a variety of other colors : 100.000 black, 50.000 red, 20.000 green and
so on. Plant I1 also produces a wide variety of specialty colors (such
as 800 purple pens per year), plus pens that write on a variety of surfaces
(flip charts, transparencies, white boards, etc.). All together,
Plant 11, like Plant I, produces 1.000.000 pens per year, but with several
thousand different color, packaging, and writing surface combinations.
Despite the similarity in product, physical facilities, and total output
of the two plants, a visitor walking through them would notice
dramatic differences. Plant I1 contains many more people : to schedule
machines, perform setups, inspect output after each setup, to
schedule, receive and inspect incoming materials and packages, to
move, count and value inventory, expedite orders, rework defective
materials, design and implement engineering change orders, negotiate
with vendors, issue purchase orders, and update and program
the much larger computer-based information system. Plant I1 also
operates with much higher levels of idle time, overtime, inventory,
rework, and scrap.
Any traditional cost system will assign about 10% of Plant 11's overhead
cost to blue pens. Whether indirect costs are assigned based on
direct labor-hours, machine-hours, material quantities, or units produced,
blue pens represent 10% of the plant's volume of activity and
will, therefore, receive 10% of the plant's indirect costs. Similarly, a
low volume product such as the 800 purple pens produced each year
would have .08% (800 divided by 1.000.000) of the plant's indirect
costs assigned to it. If a blue and a purple pen had the same labor
times, machine processing times, and direct material costs, then the
standard cost of the two products would be identical under any traditional
cost system.
The strategic consequences from using such a cost system can be
disastrous. Over time, the market price for blue pens, and for most
high-volume standard products, will be determined by focused and efficient
producers like Plant I. Managers of Plant I1 will find it difficult
to compete in the blue pen market because their reported profit margins
in these lines will be low or even negative. The managers of Plant
I1 will look for profit growth in their new product lines - designer colors,
specialized writing surfaces - where they earn attractive price
premiums, perhaps 10 to 20 percent. They will de-emphasize standard
commodity-like products where the plant seems uncompetitive, and
shift to an expanded line of specialty products with unique features
and options, and generally much smaller unit volumes. Of course, scaling
back on blue pens and proliferating the product line to replace
the lost volumes will create new demands for overhead and support
resources, raising costs even further.

强壮的小胖子

irenechl

楼主，找到20题的意思原文，请鉴定
20传统成本会计
Virtually all manufacturing companies use their inventory valuation
systems to measure product costs. As discussed earlier, this system,
in today's environment of large indirect expenses and product diversity,
produces highly distorted product costs. Service companies, who
have not had to assign expenses to their products for financial statement
purposes, have operated for decades without knowing product
costs. They collected costs in functional or responsibility categories
but made little effort to assign accurately their operating expenses to
their products and customers.
At its simplest level, product cost distortions occur in virtually all
organizations producing and selling multiple products. An example
provides a simple illustration of the sources of the distortion. Consider
two factories, both malung pens using identical capital equipment and
physical facilities. Plant I is a focused producer that manufactures
only blue pens, 1.000.000 units per year. Plant I1 is a full line producer.
In addition to producing blue pens, (100.000 per year), it produces
a variety of other colors : 100.000 black, 50.000 red, 20.000 green and
so on. Plant I1 also produces a wide variety of specialty colors (such
as 800 purple pens per year), plus pens that write on a variety of surfaces
(flip charts, transparencies, white boards, etc.). All together,
Plant 11, like Plant I, produces 1.000.000 pens per year, but with several
thousand different color, packaging, and writing surface combinations.
Despite the similarity in product, physical facilities, and total output
of the two plants, a visitor walking through them would notice
dramatic differences. Plant I1 contains many more people : to schedule
machines, perform setups, inspect output after each setup, to
schedule, receive and inspect incoming materials and packages, to
move, count and value inventory, expedite orders, rework defective
materials, design and implement engineering change orders, negotiate
with vendors, issue purchase orders, and update and program
the much larger computer-based information system. Plant I1 also
operates with much higher levels of idle time, overtime, inventory,
rework, and scrap.
Any traditional cost system will assign about 10% of Plant 11's overhead
cost to blue pens. Whether indirect costs are assigned based on
direct labor-hours, machine-hours, material quantities, or units produced,
blue pens represent 10% of the plant's volume of activity and
will, therefore, receive 10% of the plant's indirect costs. Similarly, a
low volume product such as the 800 purple pens produced each year
would have .08% (800 divided by 1.000.000) of the plant's indirect
costs assigned to it. If a blue and a purple pen had the same labor
times, machine processing times, and direct material costs, then the
standard cost of the two products would be identical under any traditional
cost system.
The strategic consequences from using such a cost system can be
disastrous. Over time, the market price for blue pens, and for most
high-volume standard products, will be determined by focused and efficient
producers like Plant I. Managers of Plant I1 will find it difficult
to compete in the blue pen market because their reported profit margins
in these lines will be low or even negative. The managers of Plant
I1 will look for profit growth in their new product lines - designer colors,
specialized writing surfaces - where they earn attractive price
premiums, perhaps 10 to 20 percent. They will de-emphasize standard
commodity-like products where the plant seems uncompetitive, and
shift to an expanded line of specialty products with unique features
and options, and generally much smaller unit volumes. Of course, scaling
back on blue pens and proliferating the product line to replace
the lost volumes will create new demands for overhead and support
resources, raising costs even further.

-- by 会员 colinkelly (2012/5/13 20:08:21)

thx~

joanbaby

thanks：）

小雨点儿abc

请问附件的密码是？

杀G炖蘑菇

对于阅读寂静小白一直有个疑惑~就算我们遇到牛牛整理的童咦篇蚊帐~出题点、重心也是一样的嘛？

zzztmac

大家加油，给力，gmat搞定它！

ChristinaKK

哎，群好像怎么也没有加进去啊。

给个36篇 anchoring的参考资料吧
Anchoring or focalism is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.

During normal decision making, anchoring occurs when individuals overly rely on a specific piece of information to govern their thought-process. Once the anchor is set, there is a bias toward adjusting or interpreting other information to reflect the "anchored" information. Through this cognitive bias, the first information learned about a subject (or, more generally, information learned at an early age) can affect future decision making and information analysis.
For example, as a person looks to buy a used car, he or she may focus excessively on the odometer reading and model year of the car, and use those criteria as a basis for evaluating the value of the car, rather than considering how well the engine or the transmission is maintained.

The focusing effect (or focusing illusion) is a cognitive bias that occurs when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event, causing an error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
People focus on notable differences, excluding those that are less conspicuous, when making predictions about happiness or convenience. For example, when people were asked how much happier they believe Californians are compared to Midwesterners, Californians and Midwesterners both said Californians must be considerably happier, when, in fact, there was no difference between the actual happiness rating of Californians and Midwesterners. The bias lies in that most people asked focused on and overweighed the sunny weather and ostensibly easy-going lifestyle of California and devalued and underrated other aspects of life and determinants of happiness, such as low crime rates and safety from natural disasters like earthquakes (both of which large parts of California lack).[1]
A rise in income has only a small and transient effect on happiness and well-being, but people consistently overestimate this effect. Kahneman et al. proposed that this is a result of a focusing illusion, with people focusing on conventional measures of achievement rather than on everyday routine.[2]

Anchoring and adjustment is a psychological heuristic that influences the way people intuitively assess probabilities. According to this heuristic, people start with an implicitly suggested reference point (the "anchor") and make adjustments to it to reach their estimate. A person begins with a first approximation (anchor) and then makes incremental adjustments based on additional information.
The anchoring and adjustment heuristic was first theorized by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. In one of their first studies, the two showed that when asked to guess the percentage of African nations that are members of the United Nations, people who were first asked "Was it more or less than 10%?" guessed lower values (25% on average) than those who had been asked if it was more or less than 65% (45% on average).[3] The pattern has held in other experiments for a wide variety of different subjects of estimation.
As a second example, in a study by Dan Ariely, an audience is first asked to write the last two digits of their social security number and consider whether they would pay this number of dollars for items whose value they did not know, such as wine, chocolate and computer equipment. They were then asked to bid for these items, with the result that the audience members with higher two-digit numbers would submit bids that were between 60 percent and 120 percent higher than those with the lower social security numbers, which had become their anchor.[4]

ChristinaKK

哎，群好像怎么也没有加进去啊。

给个36篇 anchoring的参考资料吧
Anchoring or focalism is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.

During normal decision making, anchoring occurs when individuals overly rely on a specific piece of information to govern their thought-process. Once the anchor is set, there is a bias toward adjusting or interpreting other information to reflect the "anchored" information. Through this cognitive bias, the first information learned about a subject (or, more generally, information learned at an early age) can affect future decision making and information analysis.
For example, as a person looks to buy a used car, he or she may focus excessively on the odometer reading and model year of the car, and use those criteria as a basis for evaluating the value of the car, rather than considering how well the engine or the transmission is maintained.

The focusing effect (or focusing illusion) is a cognitive bias that occurs when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event, causing an error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
People focus on notable differences, excluding those that are less conspicuous, when making predictions about happiness or convenience. For example, when people were asked how much happier they believe Californians are compared to Midwesterners, Californians and Midwesterners both said Californians must be considerably happier, when, in fact, there was no difference between the actual happiness rating of Californians and Midwesterners. The bias lies in that most people asked focused on and overweighed the sunny weather and ostensibly easy-going lifestyle of California and devalued and underrated other aspects of life and determinants of happiness, such as low crime rates and safety from natural disasters like earthquakes (both of which large parts of California lack).[1]
A rise in income has only a small and transient effect on happiness and well-being, but people consistently overestimate this effect. Kahneman et al. proposed that this is a result of a focusing illusion, with people focusing on conventional measures of achievement rather than on everyday routine.[2]

Anchoring and adjustment is a psychological heuristic that influences the way people intuitively assess probabilities. According to this heuristic, people start with an implicitly suggested reference point (the "anchor") and make adjustments to it to reach their estimate. A person begins with a first approximation (anchor) and then makes incremental adjustments based on additional information.
The anchoring and adjustment heuristic was first theorized by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. In one of their first studies, the two showed that when asked to guess the percentage of African nations that are members of the United Nations, people who were first asked "Was it more or less than 10%?" guessed lower values (25% on average) than those who had been asked if it was more or less than 65% (45% on average).[3] The pattern has held in other experiments for a wide variety of different subjects of estimation.
As a second example, in a study by Dan Ariely, an audience is first asked to write the last two digits of their social security number and consider whether they would pay this number of dollars for items whose value they did not know, such as wine, chocolate and computer equipment. They were then asked to bid for these items, with the result that the audience members with higher two-digit numbers would submit bids that were between 60 percent and 120 percent higher than those with the lower social security numbers, which had become their anchor.[4]

-- by 会员 ChristinaKK (2012/5/14 10:21:13)

感觉第一段和最后一段跟机经差不多