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?
In some countries it is not illegal for a company to drive away competitors by selling a product below cost.
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.
As part of promotions designed to attract new customers, airlines sometimes reduce their ticket prices to below an economically sustainable level.
On deciding to stop serving particular routes, most airlines shift resources to other routes rather than reduce the size of their operations.
When airlines dramatically reduce their fares on a particular route, the total number of air passengers on that route increases greatly.
给竞争者提供机会 → 长期无法获利
B选项应该理解为价格战会给竞争者提供机会,但是一旦竞争者把握机会进入,航空公司将会再次采取价格战策略逼走竞争者,这样的话也就没什么竞争者敢进来了(毕竟这里有一个无底线降价的航空公司),所以长期来说还是可以获利的?
不否定是提供了better opportunity的,只是会用相同的方法驱逐竞争者…毕竟如果B选项理解成竞争者没有机会,就驳斥了前提啊
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论