Over the past five years, the price gap between name-brand cereals and less expensive store-brand cereals has become so wide that consumers have been switching increasingly to store brands despite the name brands' reputation for better quality. To attract these consumers back, several manufacturers of name-brand cereals plan to narrow the price gap between their cereals and store brands to less than what it was five years ago.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the likelihood that the manufacturers' plan will succeed in attracting back a large percentage of consumers who have switched to store brands?
There is no significant difference among manufacturers of name-brand cereals in the prices they charge for their products.
Consumers who have switched to store-brand cereals have generally been satisfied with the quality of those cereals.
Many consumers would never think of switching to store-brand cereals because they believe the name brand cereals to be of better quality.
Because of lower advertising costs, stores are able to offer their own brands of cereals at significantly lower prices than those charged for name-brand cereals
Total annual sales of cereals-including both name-brand and store-brand cereals-have not increased significantly over the past five years.
name-brand谷物和store-brand谷物的差价越来越夸张导致客户都去买store-brand,几个name-brand生产商计划将差价缩小到5年以前的水平以此吸引回客户。问weaken
choice a, name-brand谷物生产商之间的定价没有显著的差距,irrelevant,题干问的是决定降价的几个生产商
choice b, 转而去买store-brand谷物的客人对谷物的质量很满意。correct,说明即使降价这些客人也未必重新选择name-brand
choice d, 因为低的广告成本,商店可以以比name-brand更低的价格出售store-brand。irrelevant,可以解释为什么store-brand在这几年之间卖得比name-brand便宜
D. 题目中已经说过厂商narrow the gap,所以建立在不管store-brand多低,厂商已经成功narrow的基础上,这个选项就变为了无关的fact
NB和SB的比较,方法目的,方法是NB降价,目的是要吸引顾客。A说的among manufactures,相当于同样的竞争者,竞争者选项错误,排除;C就是废话,这里谈论的是要买SB的人,选项谈论不买SB的人,无关;D看到广告费就可以排除了,无关;E也是看到annual sales就可以排除,无关。再看B,反证法,如果顾客还没觉得SB的质量好,那么NB的价格一低,就可能转到NB去买。
呃,同选B但是想法不一样,我的思路是:问题问就算降价了大品牌可能也没法挽回大量已经switch brand的顾客---B switch brand的顾客对质量都很满意,那么价格就不是他们再考虑的范围,就算降价也没法挽回客源----削弱了他们降价挽回客源的可能性
D 因为成本低,所以store brand可以有自己的品牌而且低价出售。这是出现这种现象的原因 D只是重复了这个低价品牌的优势,如果它明确说的是 低于 贵品牌降价后的价格 才可以
解析赞!
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
为了增加销量,缩小跟他人的价格差
而且,B选项表明的是这个低价品牌的质量已经收到了认可,那就说明贵品牌仅有的一点优势也没有了,就算它缩小了价差,依然比低价品牌要高,依然占不到价格优势
D只是重复了这个低价品牌的优势,如果它明确说的是 低于 贵品牌降价后的价格 才可以
手段:name brand降价
目的:吸引消费者
C 个体不具代表性
D 因为成本低,所以store brand可以有自己的品牌而且低价出售。这是出现这种现象的原因
问的是知名品牌能否重新赢得consumers who have switched to store brands,B 选项抹杀了知名品牌的优势
目标:To attract these consumers back 方案:several manufacturers of name-brand cereals plan to narrow the price gap between their cereals and store brands to less than what it was five years ago.
D项不能削弱是因为,提到store 的降价空间很大。但是并没有说可以降价到brand不能承受的地步,所以没能够削弱。A项,就是说,即使缩小差距也没用,还是贵啊,既然满意store的质量,可能就不会多花钱再买brand了。
我认为是方案推理
argument:由于price gap越来越大,所以消费者从brand转向了超市生产的。措施:brand降低这个gap
目标:能够attract these consumers back
B 好的点在于 其提及了argument的质量问题,意味着quality不是影响这部分消费者选择的cereal的因素,只有价格才是,只要gap存在,就不会switch back
C target的点错误,target的点是没有switch的消费者,但本文的目标客户是是已经switch了的消费者
D 解释了超市cereal为什么低价的原因,方案是减少gap,D最多能攻击方案,但并不能攻击到目标
想知道D为什么不可以 我理解的是name-brand降价之后 store-brand还有空间可以降,所以算是对这个措施的一个weak。 提前谢谢回答的小伙伴啦
一种说法,D是无关项,因为可以lower到哪个程度完全没说,是否Lower到能够使plan失败也没说
另一种说法(更倾向),我觉得其实D是一个静态的绝对值的选项,题目说的是一个动态的相对值的情况。
好比我现在我和你都在跑步,我问你,”是否我跑的快些就能缩小我们之间的距离?”,你说:”因为你是男生,所以我跑得快”
讲得不好,望有所帮助
不觉得这种回答怪怪的吗?
“”因为你是男生,所以你跑得快”,手误
就是你降价我也降价呗,反正只要缩小或者跟你价格就行了,好像起不到真正削弱的作用
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
B:name-brand cereals 生产商想要象原来一样靠质量吸引他们,现在这个因素不存在了(顾客现在对STORE的质量满意,不考虑NAME优势)。吸引他们的因素没了。顾客有何理由回去。价格吗?(质量已经不重要),name-brand cereals 生产商价格降价后还是比STORE高。
narrow the price gap...但是name-brand cereals的价格还是高于store-brand cereals...C重复题意