→ antisupreme:thanks!!! 05/16 00:59
※ 引述《antisupreme (好香喔~~~)》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?
: (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.
: 想問(B)選項怎麼weaken？
: 我的理解是會變成一個循環 降價--->recoup--->競爭者--->降價.....
: 感覺應該是support賺不到錢...
: 求指教，謝謝!
文章中的論點就是你上面寫的vicious cycle：
降價->趕走競爭者（但虧錢）->漲價cover損失->其他競爭者價格砍得比你低來搶你人...
關鍵在於「對手降得比這公司低」
B選項點出了「降過價的公司，以後還會再跟人玩削價競爭這遊戲」
所以這家公司也可以再降價來應付對手，人就不一定會被搶走。
這個循環也就不會持續。
Dustin
--
Dustin Deng
(一戰自修760，AWA 5.5)
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 61.230.69.170
※ 編輯: danyuchn 來自: 61.230.69.170 (05/15 09:52)