请问og-30

枕浪而眠

这个题其实只要看一个字眼，economically sound pricing method.只要选项说的不是能不能省钱的问题，就直接排除。BCDE说的都不是省钱的问题，直接排除。也许有人会说C讲了price的问题，但仔细读一下，说的只是price会变，并没有说能不能省钱，而A直接说了这样做即使过去钱没用完，现在还要多付钱。所以不economically sound。选A。

katrinaxy520

前面有些ＮＮ经济学的好厉害啊！分析那么一大段．．．可是我觉得把问题想简单点最好．尽量以ＯＧ上的解释为主．别加自己的主观色彩．

按ＯＧ的解释说．合同价格反映了原始材料的价格．这正说明了ＨＣ的有效．原始材料的价格变化就是反应了市场价格．合同价格反应了它当然就效了！

kevin070707

以下是引用iamnone在2003-7-23 13:00:00的发言：
30. The price the government pays for standard weapons purchased from military contractors
is determined by a pricing method called “historical costing.” Historical costing allows
contractors to protect their profits by adding a percentage increase, based on the current rate
of inflation, to the previous year’s contractual price.
Which of the following statements, if true, is the best basis for a criticism of historical costing as
an economically sound pricing method for military contracts?
A. The government might continue to pay for past inefficient use of funds.
B. The rate of inflation has varied considerably over the past twenty years.
C. The contractual price will be greatly affected by the cost of materials used for the products.
D. Many taxpayers question the amount of money the government spends on military
contracts.
E. The pricing method based on historical costing might not encourage the development of
innovative weapons.

请问,c 为什么不可以,成本的变化会导致利润的变化,进而,economically influence the method.

A: historical costing ; B: an economically sound pricing method;

A->B , asking assumption

only A could save money.

lzj1209

看了NN们的讨论~有复杂有简单~

自己形成了一些看法~

欢迎大家指正~

原文：HC定价法=去年价格+今年的通涨

    

      The government might continue to pay for past
inefficient use of funds

    

→
        如果过去的资金使用就无效，那么根据HC定价法，只是增加了一个通胀率，去年的价格是不变的，政府还会继续支付这一部分。

    

→ 所以政府过去支付它时就已经无效，现在支付它还会继续无效。

Patalizia

那位大侠能把问题“Which of the following statements, if true, is the best basis for a criticism of historical costing as
an economically sound pricing method for military contracts?”翻译一下？

momli

“关于本题偶还有一个问题：题干上问哪个说明这一定价法不是an economically sound pricing method for military contracts。military contracts 指谁呢？如果只military contractors, A显然对他们有利啊。”

military contracts 就是指military contractors， 其实本题可以这样理解：military contractor认为这个历史定价法真是好啊，本身定有一定价格，还可以随着inflation而增加价格，但是出题者让我们思考的是：这么好的价格体系有没有缺陷呢？ 那就是，本身的基础价格就存在漏洞，导致government就没办法支付，更何谈加不加价呢？

所以回头看出题者给出的答案真是相当match，仔细看og的解释，真的发现出题者之妙啊。

本人研究半天，得出这个结论，虽然时隔5年恢复问题人，但还是希望贡献自己的理解，嘻嘻~

sdcar2010

From a purely logic reasoning point of view, I would choose C (The contractual price will be greatly affected by the cost of materials used for the products).  The reason is that there is no way you can assume that the price/cost of materials each year will parallel the general inflation curve of ALL goods considered. That is just obsurd.

reebe

对于这个题还是一知半解，总觉得对题意的理解有偏差。
题上说：allow contractors to protect their profits by...那就是指是military contractors 定价了，但题目削弱的的是HC as an economically sound pricing method for military contracts. 开始晕菜，既然是contractors定价，干嘛要省钱经济啊，当然希望政府给的越多越好了啊。。。A确实是指政府多付了无效的资金，也就是说HC不省钱了。可是这不正中contractors的下怀嘛，搞不清楚政府和承包商的关系，希望有大牛出来解释