ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 6189|回复: 14
打印 上一主题 下一主题

GWD-1-36 问一问

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-2-15 13:39:00 | 只看该作者

GWD-1-36 问一问

In corporate purchasing,


       competitive scrutiny is typically


       limited to suppliers of items that are


Line       directly related to end products.


  (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.  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.


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?


              



  • 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.


  • They typically are instituted at the urging of the supplier rather than the purchaser.

  • 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.

  • 答案选了b.可是d为什么不对呢?文章当中说了indirect” purchases (such as


    computers, advertising, and legal


    services), which are not directly


    related to production, corporations


    often favor “supplier partnerships


    d不是对这段话的取非么?


    请指教!

    沙发
    发表于 2005-2-17 10:32:00 | 只看该作者

    the article never mentioned or inferred that supplier partnerships is "not feasible" when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers' end products.

    板凳
    发表于 2005-4-16 19:30:00 | 只看该作者

    同问D项,competitive scrutiny is typically limited to suppliers of items that are directly related to end products

    D项:supplier partnerships are not feasible when……不是很好吗

    还有C项是什么意思?不懂

    地板
    发表于 2005-4-17 02:10:00 | 只看该作者
    尽管文章当中说了With indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships。 d不是对这段话的取非。因为corporations favor “supply partnerships”从逻辑的角度而言并不能得出supplier partnerships is "not feasible" when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers' end products.有可能supply partnership有时也适用于direct perchases.
    5#
    发表于 2005-4-17 02:13:00 | 只看该作者

    C. They typically are instituted at the urging of the supplier rather than the purchaser.

    这种partnership通常是在supplier的要求下而不是purchaser得要求而制定的。

    6#
    发表于 2005-5-4 08:17:00 | 只看该作者
    谢谢版主!
    7#
    发表于 2006-3-22 16:03:00 | 只看该作者
    还是要问一下,那B 为什么对,在文中找不到根据啊,在GMAT中,不是不能根据常识推理么。马上就要考试了,请NN们帮忙!
    8#
    发表于 2006-7-21 21:25:00 | 只看该作者

    36题的D项我们用逻辑来排除:

    原命题是INDIRECT PURCHASES-----推出使用PARTNERSHIP(LINE5-9)

    而其否命题是DIRECT PURCHASES---推出不使用PARTNERSHIP(即D项所言)

    因为原命题不等价于否命题所以D是错的.

    答案选B(LINE5-16)

    9#
    发表于 2006-9-15 12:11:00 | 只看该作者
    楼上逻辑好强哦,太佩服啦!!
    10#
    发表于 2006-10-29 02:42:00 | 只看该作者

    There are two independent variables...that companies should use to evaluate the feasibility of...

    所以要否定这两项因素才能说"They are not feasible"

    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 03:38
    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