推 shyuan:真的好繞 一般這樣我都會認為過度推論 結果居然是答案~~ 01/07 01:04
→ shyuan:謝謝你的解釋 01/07 01:04
推 ningko:看了你的解釋反而豁然開朗! 03/09 08:06
※ 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~~~~~
這題很繞，看國外網站勉強找到一個解釋：
經理人分：趕人的、被趕的
趕人的：第一次趕成功，之後開始海薛，再有不怕死的再趕，趕完再薛
被趕的：相信進去又會再被對方趕出來，沒撈到先虧錢，所以不進去了
結論：舊的不來，新的被趕，所以可長期獲利
怪吧！？
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 61.59.150.227