Extensive research has shown that the effects of short-term price promotions on sales are themselves short-term. Companies' hopes that promotions might have a positive aftereffect have not been borne out for reasons that researchers have been able to identify. A price promotion entices only a brand's long-term or "loyal" customers; people seldom buy an unfamiliar brand merely because the price is reduced. They simply avoid paying more than they have to when one of their customary brands is temporarily available at a reduced price. A price promotion does not increase the number of long-term customers of a brand, as it attracts virtually no new customers in the first place. Nor do price promotions have lingering aftereffects for a brand, even negative ones such as damage to a brand's reputation or erosion of customer loyalty, as is often feared.
So why do companies spend so much on price promotions? Clearly price promotions are generally run at a loss, otherwise there would be more of them. And the bigger the increase in sales at promotion prices, the bigger the loss. While short-term price promotions can have legitimate uses, such as reducing excess inventory, it is the recognizable increase in sales that is their main attraction to management, which is therefore reluctant to abandon this strategy despite its effect on the bottom line.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
compare the arguments in favor of a certain strategy with those against it
attack a certain strategy by enumerating its negative consequences
justify the use of a certain strategy in light of certain criticisms that have been made against it
advocate a particular strategy by arguing against an alternative
explain the effects of a certain strategy and the primary motivations for adopting it
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 E。原因是,文章主要目的是解释短期价格促销策略对销售的影响,以及公司采用此策略的主要动机。文章中提到了它可能会带来的积极或消极影响,但它未提到任何主张。文章也未提及任何其他策略,也没有将这种策略与任何辩论或批评进行比较。
全文的结构是首先点明短期价格促销的弊端,然后第二段开头的so why do companies spend so much on price promotions? 来引起讨论,即既然有那么多不好的地方,为什么还要采取这个策略呢-->E
错选了C:justify:证明…正确(或正当、有理) to show that sb/sth is right or reasonable
但是全文来看作者对这个strategy没有明确的支持和反对的态度,所以第二段并不是在justify,而是说这个策略的某些好的现实意义
另外C的逻辑意思是,第一段都是给第二段服务的,但是我认为这两段是并列的
第一段贬低,第二段是解释为什么要用,所以选E
第一段最后一句的,Nor do代表没有负面效果(也没有起到吸引顾客的正面效果)。所以第一段只是在解释效果而已
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
这题不应该错,两段开头第一句就分别给了很明显的hint...the effects of short-term price promotions on sales are themselvesshort-term和So why do companies spend so much on price promotions。而E很好的囊括了这两点
So why do companies spend so much on price promotions?
看作者的tone的时候 要看主次,以及是否帽子cover全部内容。本文主要是Negative 但后来补充了一些positive的说明。比较选项来看只有最后一个比较保守谨慎的说明的这些。
文章第二段第一句就说了 “为什么还要用它呢?” 整个第二段都在解释出一个用它的原因 说明使用它肯定是有理由的 而不是全部的否认。 答案肯定是E啊!!!
第一段说的是两种 aftereffect does not born out
没有A这种效果不能说明批评A
我还是没有领会到作者的意思。作者想说的是尽管 short term price promotion has a lot disadvantage, 但是还是还是有很公司在用。整体是对price promotion 是持否定态度的。因此是E不是C
个人觉得因为c用了"justify"这个词,whcih is 辩解和辩护。c选项的意思感觉是因为对降价促销这个strategy有一些反对的声音,所以base on 这些反对的声音作者为降价促销提出这个strsategy进辩解和辩护。但是我觉得文章的目的并不是在于对为什么公司用降价的strategy进行辩护,因为第一段并不是在critisize降价只是在纯粹地阐述降价这个strategy对公司有什么影响, 然后第二段说明为什么公司想用降价的strategy,
我觉得c是错误的原因是因为c用到了“justify"这个词,which is 辩解和辩护。个人认为c的意思是说因为大家对降价促销这个strategy有反对(critism)的声音,所以base在这些critism上作者为这个strategy进行辩护。但是这个文章并不是为降价的strategy进行辩护,因为第一段并不是只在critisize这个strategy而是在单纯说明降价对公司的影响(例如文章第一段有写公司的管理人员认为降价会对公司有after effect, 但是研究发现其实降价不会对公司产生任何好的坏的after effct,这其实并不是critism只是单纯地陈述影响),然后第二段很明显就是在说公司做降价促销的motivator是什么,所以选e.
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
还是C将两段的关系弄错了
E表达的两段关系是并列。
但是C表达却是第二段比第一段重要。
C到底错在哪里呢?
文章第一段对short term price promotion 的否定,第二段说的是对这个政策的肯定。
我是总结的太笼统吗?
而应该像E总结, 第一段说的是效果,第二段说的效果不佳但是还是有公司采取这个政策的原因?