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.
果因
∴用将对手赶出市场的低价竞争不适合长期使用
∵如果要弥补亏损、收回成本提高价格,会被竞争对手模仿采用低价竞争(陷入被动)
削弱,削弱因果链条(CQ1),或引入他因(CQ2)说明
A、低于成本的价格在一些国家不合法;无关
B、决策者认为,如果新竞争对手出现,用过低价竞争的公司会再次使用低价竞争;(习惯降价促销的公司会让竞争者不会模仿,甚至不敢抢地盘);CORRECT
C、为吸引顾客,有时公司会使用自己无法承受的价格;无关,甚至增强
D、决定停止一个航路,公司会优先投资新航路,而不是减小这个航路的规模;无关,甚至增强(走的逻辑链和原文一样)
E、当价格下降,顾客数量会激增;(即使如此,也反驳不了被模仿)
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论