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.
关于D
完全无关.D描述的是一个公司关闭某航线后的2种资源安排的选择,各位亲,我们在讨论票价的问题啊,完全没有准备关闭航线好吗,这选择彻底范围外啊。就算退出了也能再杀回来。
D 说的是决定退出以后其他公司的策略,结论讨论的是加价会不会给其他公司机会。D讲的是放弃机会以后的事,和有没有机会没什么关系
觉得要紧扣该题的目的是 drive competitors off,B直接表示即使航空公司涨价了但只要竞争对手一进入他们就会降价,从而不给竞争对手任何机会,直接削弱 。D项不能保证其他航空公司进入的航线该公司没进入,这样还是赶不走competitors.
B 可以排除新竞争者,潜在竞争者
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论