扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2007E2-CR-15
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.
目标 drive competitors off those routes
方案 reduce fares on certain routes to a level at which they lose money
加强
原文给的弱点是，其他公司会采用一样的方式低价竞争，那么就无法赶走竞争者，达不到目标
加强这个推理，就是让弱点变得invaild
证明对手不会采取低价竞争，或者竞争不过主角公司就OK
A 违不违法和这题没关系
B 只要有一次降价的经历，之后竞争者出现，还会继续降价。。那竞争者采用同样策略就行不通了。好
C 描述降价程度，无关
D 无关
E 当降价时，乘客人数就多了。这是客观供求关系的结论呀。 反驳不了竞争者采用同样战略会怎么样
key word: competitor should appear in the right answer!
C 的确会有公司把价格降到很低很低，但是和推论无关
E 价格降低，客户增加，一增一减，profit怎么变不知道
C 一旦提高价格，包含了2个主观判断，由竞争者还会回来～推出因此不能长期盈利
但回过头来想想，D说“most airlines shift resources to other routes rather than reduce the size of their operations. ”这只能说明竞争者们退出后，在既定条件不变的情况下，competitors 回来可能性减小（也就是说如果我们航空公司继续维持低价来吸引顾客，competitors无利可图时，他们一般不会回来），但是但是但是！问题的关键是我们的收费提高后，可想而知获利增加，这时虽然其他competitors回归的成本比初始状态时要高，可仍然有利可图，所以可能会继续回来，而正确选项B正好排除了这个可能，说只要你一回来，我就又降价，看你敢不敢回来！
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
The argument rests on the premise that, once the leading airline raises its prices back up to 'normal' higher levels, other airlines will jump right back into the fray.
Therefore, choice b is correct: it states that other airlines are likely to continue to stay away, even after the big mean price-cutting airline raises its prices back up. (if their executives believe that 'big air'
mark登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
目标：赶走竞争者
方案：采取降价的方式
评估方向一定与方案有关要求削弱推论就是要求加强方案
a,说这种方案违法，削弱了方案
b,竞争者认为一个使用降价策略的公司，它还会继续使用降价策略当竞争再出现的时候，所以竞争者就不再去竞争了。加强了方案的可行性
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
另一种提取出来的前提和结论是：价格战需要通过高收费弥补前期损失 → 价格战给竞争者提供了机会