※ 引述《shyuan (好奇怪喔)》之銘言： : 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 : 這題好奇怪阿 我的想法是 : 他是要我們weaken argument : 所以是要找 即使削價競爭長久下來仍舊有利潤 : 那從B選項 哪裡可以看得出來呢? : 謝謝大家~~~~~ 這題很繞，看國外網站勉強找到一個解釋： 經理人分：趕人的、被趕的 趕人的：第一次趕成功，之後開始海薛，再有不怕死的再趕，趕完再薛 被趕的：相信進去又會再被對方趕出來，沒撈到先虧錢，所以不進去了 結論：舊的不來，新的被趕，所以可長期獲利 怪吧！？ --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.59.150.227