Veterinarians generally derive some of their income from selling several manufacturers’ lines of pet-care products. Knowing that pet owners rarely throw away mail from their pet’s veterinarian unread, one manufacturer of pet-care products offered free promotional materials on its products to veterinarians for mailing to their clients. Very few veterinarians accepted the offer, however, even though the manufacturer’s products are of high quality.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the veterinarians’ reaction to the manufacturer’s promotional scheme ?
Most of the veterinarians to whom the free promotional materials were offered were already selling the manufacturer’s per-care products to their clients.
The special promotional materials were intended as a supplement to the manufacturer’s usual promotional activities rather than as a replacement for them.
The manufacturer’s products, unlike most equally good competing products sold by veterinarians, are also available in pet stores and in supermarkets.
Many pet owners have begun demanding quality in products they buy for their pets that is as high as that in products they buy for themselves.
Veterinarians sometimes recommend that pet owners use products formulated for people when no suitable product specially formulated for animals is available.
情景:兽医一般会从买周边产品处赚点小钱。由于很少有宠物主人会扔掉邮件,所以一个制造商就夹了一些材料在邮件中。但,虽然这个材料质量很好,不过还是几乎没有兽医接受这种提案。
推理:注意本题的问题。本题直接问了哪一项可以解释这个兽医不接受提案的现象。而按照正常逻辑来说,即:
前提:促销材料免费且产品质量很好
结论:兽医接受提案
显然地,前提是原因,结论是结果。本题为因果推理。
选题方式:选项必须能断掉因果之间的关系。
选项分析:
A选项:大部分被提供免费促销材料的兽医已经正在给他们的客户卖周边产品了。本选项和因果逻辑无关,我们的推理点是,“材料很好”推出“接受提案”。无论兽医是否正在卖别的产品,他都可以再接受卖个新产品嘛。
B选项:特殊促销材料被用来作为通常促销材料的补充而非代替。本选项和推理无关。
C选项:Correct. 不像很多兽医卖的竞品,这个制造商的产品也在宠物商店和超市被提供。显然,这可以断掉“材料很好”推出“接受提案”间的关系,即,纵然很好,但由于到处都有卖的,兽医也卖不出去,自然就不会接受提案了。
D选项:很多宠物拥有者对于宠物产品的质量要求已经和他们对给自己的东西的质量要求相同了。由于制造商的产品本来就很好,所以这样的要求反而会加剧兽医应该接受制造商的产品这一说法。
E选项:兽医有时会建议在没有适合给动物的产品提供时,可以用给人的产品来替代。本选项和推理无关。
要从兽医的角度考虑其拒绝的动机,兽医已经在卖商家产品,没有道理不接受一些免费小样。(就算按照你的角度,小样只是小样,很快就用完了要来买你的新的,反而会增加利润)而C的观点是,兽医以前卖的都是good competing products 质量好的有竞争力(这里可以理解为差异化)的产品,兽医心想:纵然你这个质量不错,但是遍地都在卖,就构不成差异化,肯定不算是一个有竞争力的产品,故此拒绝。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
握手啊,我现在就是一个大傻子了
握手啊,我以为只有我这样,后面最后几十个太虐了登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
C选项:Correct. 不像很多兽医卖的竞品,这个制造商的产品也在宠物商店和超市被提供。如果答应推广了之后,人们可能被分流区其他地方买这些商品而不是通过兽医,兽医担心这会reduce their profits。生厂商想借助兽医的营销渠道做免费宣传,但兽医分不到这块蛋糕甚至既有利益还会被抢走!
在这道题目中,之前卖ok现在推这个产品拒绝,原因出现在之前和现在产品之间的difference里面,C明显提到了unlike most equally blabla。虽然感觉A 也有提到,但是C给人的感觉更有理由些。
超市和宠物店有卖,兽医就卖不出去了?你们买药是优先从医院买,还是去其他地方买??为了防止你这么想,选项c还多说了一句unlike most equally good competing products sold by veterinarians
A 兽医已经在卖这些产品了,不代表不能接受。 说服力不好。 考试时想不清楚应该保留住。
C 中说服力强,生产商的产品在宠物店和超市随处可见。见一个插入语,unlike most equally good competing products sold by veterinarians, 强对比很好解释了paradox,是因为竞争力差,优选
A里没有说明赠送的东西和兽医自己卖的东西是竞争关系,那兽医完全可以接受这个proposal多赚钱
C里说赠送的东西在别处也有卖,那就说明兽医可能卖不出去,没得赚
为了防止你这么想,选项c还多说了一句unlike most equally good competing products sold by veterinarians
c的意思应该是,既然我们宠物店和超市都有了,干嘛还去网上推销你的登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
C里说赠送的东西在别处也有卖,那就说明兽医可能卖不出去,没得赚