4．The price the government pays for standard weapons purchased from military contractors is determined by a pricing method called＂historical costing．＂Historical costing allows contractors to protect their profits by adding a percentage increase，based on the current rate of inflation，to the previous year’s contractual price．

Which of the following statements，if true，is the best basis for a criticism of historical costing as an economically sound pricing method for military contracts?

(A)  The government might continue to pay for past inefficient use of funds．

(B)  The rate of inflation has varied considerably over the past twenty years．

(C)The contractual price will be greatly affected by the cost of materials used for the products．

(D)  Many taxpayers question the amount of money the government spends on military contracts．

       (E)  The pricing method based on historical costing might not encourage the development of innovative weapons．

the answer is A, who can tell me why choose A and how to translate it? I can't understand it clearly.

thanks a lot!!!

推理过程：

原定价不合理---〉以后定价在原定价基础上根据inflation调整---〉以后定价不合理---->historical

costing不经济

又看了几遍,还是不懂?

ETS解释: If the original contract price accommodated the contractors’ inefficiencies，the government's overpayments for these inefficiencies are simply perpetuated，and money continues to be wasted．

原句的意思应该是政府付给military contractors的price是由historical costing决定的.historical costing允许contractors在当前通货膨胀的比率的基础上通过在去年的contractual price上增加百分比来保护contractors的profits.

问题:

1.为什么original contract price 会inefficiencies?(我理解为去年价格的无效性,政府去年买武器的价格为什么会无效呢?)

2.这道题是weaken题吗?为什么啊?

3.BC为什么不对啊?

刚开始cr完全摸不着北,希望大家帮帮忙!说的不对的地方请多多指正!!!谢谢!

一般weaken要么直接weaken 结论（一般举他因），要么weaken中间的推理过程；

本题属于第二类，即作者认为在原定价上，通过合理的变价措施，即可得到新的合理定价。

这里，变价措施很难weaken,BC都在说明变价措施的合理性、必要性；DE提到了新的概念,无关；那么要想weaken结论，只能weaken原定价不合理。