扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / GMATLA-RC-124
In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny is typically limited to suppliers of items that are directly related to end products. With "indirect" purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor "supplier partnerships" (arrangements in which the purchaser forgoes the right to pursue alternative suppliers), which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny that might afford the purchaser economic leverage. There are two independent variables—availability of alternatives and ease of changing suppliers—that companies should use to evaluate the feasibility of subjecting suppliers of indirect purchases to competitive scrutiny. This can create four possible situations.
In Type 1 situations, there are many alternatives and change is relatively easy. Open pursuit of alternatives—by frequent competitive bidding, if possible—will 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 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 the ability to switch is constrained. In Type 3 situations, there are few alternatives, but the ability to switch without difficulty creates a threat that companies can use to negotiate concessions from existing suppliers. In Type 4 situations, where there are few alternatives and change is difficult, partnerships may be unavoidable.
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.
文章大意：
1. 介绍“supplier partnerships”以及影响其可行性的两个因素：替代品&方不方便更换供应商
2. 两个因素构成的四个情景
题目分析：
文章推断题： 根据文章我们可以推断出“supplier partnerships”？
原文关于sp的描述：由于indirect purchases（与生产没有直接关系），公司经常偏爱sp（购买者放弃更换供应商的权利），sp可以保护供应商避开严格的竞争力审查（需要承担购买者的经济杠杆）
选项分析：
A选项：sp无法被维持除非有大量的供应商可以提供g&s：文章后面提到当suppliers的数量多时，不需要sp。
B选项：正确。与在竞争环境下相比，sp会导致购买者付更多的钱：sp是偏向supplier的，说明purchasers在这个情况下处于不利的一方。
C选项：他们是在suppliers的敦促下设置的，而不是purchasers：文章没有提到sp是如何设置的，被谁设置的。
D选项：当g&s和购买者的最终产品有直接联系的时候，sp不适用：文章介绍了当有“indirect purchase”的情况，当没有说“direct”的情况是什么样的。
E选项：当购买者不方便换suppliers，sp最不合适：与文章最后相反，当不方便更换时，需要用sp。
文中出现过supplier partnerships，就从文中关键位置去找，而不是全文找
With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships” .
公司在针对indirect purchases的时候会采用SP，但不能推倒出在direct purchases的时候用不用SP
实际上可以排除法做出来。可能选错的D：when not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships. 并不能推出when directly related to production, corporations do not favor SP(很典型的伪是非情景）
B选项可以看比较的是in a competitive-bidding situation--即purchases have right
supplier partnerships”--(arrangements in which the purchaser forgoes the right to pursue alternative suppliers)-- purchasers do not have right
错选d D选项：当g&s和购买者的最终产品有直接联系的时候，sp不适用：文章介绍了当有“indirect purchase”的情况，当没有说“direct”的情况是什么样的。 这个不要自己发挥！！！！！
mistakenly take D
Actually the passage didnot suggest direct purchases have no supplier partnership
I did not take B cause I think economic leverage shall mean have cost advantage over other suppliers and B is the opposite side of "my logic"
which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny that might afford the purchaser economic leverage.的同义改写，同为原文supplier partnerships第一次出现的位置。
请问D是不是错在选项中的not feasible, 因为原文中有typically, favor所以没有这么绝对，所以选择B，是这么理解吗？
说的是伴随着不直接的购买，公司通常会喜欢supplier partnerships，这个是买方经常会放弃追逐可替代的供应商，但是这个供应合作商的关系会不适当地给一些供应商进行庇护，而让这些供应商免于严苛的市场检验，而这些市场检验会负担买方的经济杠杆。
which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny that might afford the purchaser economic leverage. 考的是取反！
鬼鬼 这篇文章也太抽象了8 在说你
？原文哪里表明了？？
定位原文 说的是伴随着不直接的购买，公司通常会喜欢supplier partnerships，这个是公司经常会放弃追逐可替代的供应商，但是这个供应合作商的关系会不适当地给一些供应商进行庇护，而让这些供应商免于严苛的市场检验，而这些市场检验会负担买方的经济杠杆。
也就是说，原文对于这个supplier partnerships是否定的态度，且应该是跟供应商和买方的购买价格等有关。
其他均为无关选项。所以B
?