→ shyuan:謝謝 01/07 01:05
→ changeatype:不客氣 01/10 00:34
※ 引述《shyuan (好奇怪喔)》之銘言：
: 15. (25986-!-item-!-188;#058&002914)
: 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?
: (A) In some countries it is not illegal for a company to drive away
: competitors by selling a product below cost.
: (B) 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.
: (C) As part of promotions designed to attract new customers, airlines
: sometimes reduce their ticket prices to below an economically sustainable
: level.
: (D) On deciding to stop serving particular routes, most airlines shift
: resources to other routes rather than reduce the size of their operations.
: (E) When airlines dramatically reduce their fares on a particular route, the
: total number of air passengers on that route increases greatly.
: ans B
: 這題好奇怪阿 我的想法是
: 他是要我們weaken argument
: 所以是要找 即使削價競爭長久下來仍舊有利潤
: 那從B選項 哪裡可以看得出來呢?
: 謝謝大家~~~~~
題目是說,某公司降價使競爭者退出市場,之後某公司為了彌補之前的損失提高售價
-->因此又提供了新競爭者進入市場
(B)是說is likely to do again if new competitor emerge如果新競爭者又進入
市場,該公司再降價to drive away competitors.
-----------------------------
應該是這樣
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 218.168.49.33