※ 引述《shyuan (好奇怪喔)》之铭言： : 15. (25986-!-item-!-188;#058&002914) : 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? : (A) In some countries it is not illegal for a company to drive away : competitors by selling a product below cost. : (B) 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. : (C) As part of promotions designed to attract new customers, airlines : sometimes reduce their ticket prices to below an economically sustainable : level. : (D) On deciding to stop serving particular routes, most airlines shift : resources to other routes rather than reduce the size of their operations. : (E) When airlines dramatically reduce their fares on a particular route, the : total number of air passengers on that route increases greatly. : ans B : 这题好奇怪阿 我的想法是 : 他是要我们weaken argument : 所以是要找 即使削价竞争长久下来仍旧有利润 : 那从B选项 哪里可以看得出来呢? : 谢谢大家~~~~~ 这题很绕，看国外网站勉强找到一个解释： 经理人分：赶人的、被赶的 赶人的：第一次赶成功，之後开始海薛，再有不怕死的再赶，赶完再薛 被赶的：相信进去又会再被对方赶出来，没捞到先亏钱，所以不进去了 结论：旧的不来，新的被赶，所以可长期获利 怪吧！？ --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.59.150.227