competitive scrutiny is typically

            limited to suppliers of items that are

Line     directly related to end products.

  (5)      With “indirect” purchases (such as

computers, advertising, and legal

services), which are not directly

related to production, corporations

often favor “supplier partnerships”

(10)     (arrangements in which the

purchaser forgoes the right to

pursue alternative suppliers), which

can inappropriately shelter suppliers

from rigorous competitive scrutiny

(15)     that might afford the purchaser

economic leverage.  There are two

independent variables—availability

of alternatives and ease of changing

suppliers—that companies should

(20)     use to evaluate the feasibility of

            subjecting suppliers of indirect

            purchases to competitive scrutiny.

This can create four possible

situations.

(25)           In Type 1 situations, there are

many alternatives and change is

relatively easy.  Open pursuit of

alternatives—by frequent com-

petitive bidding, if possible—will

(30)     likely yield the best results.  In

Type 2 situations, where there

are many alternatives but change

            is difficult—as for providers of

employee health-care benefits—it

(35)    is important to continuously test

the market and use the results to

secure concessions from existing

suppliers.  Alternatives provide a

           credible threat to suppliers, even if

(40)    the ability to switch is constrained.

In Type 3 situations, there ate few

alternatives, but the ability to switch

without difficulty creates a threat that

companies can use to negotiate

(45)     concessions from existing suppliers.

In Type 4 situations, where there

are few alternatives and change

is difficult, partnerships may be

unavoidable.

Q36:

Which of the following can be inferred about supplier partnerships, as they are described in the passage?

1. They cannot be sustained unless the goods or services provided are available from a large number of suppliers.
   
2. They can result in purchasers paying more for goods and services than they would in a competitive-bidding situation.
   
3. They typically are instituted at the urging of the supplier rather than the purchaser.
   
4. They are not feasible when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers’ end products.
   
5. They are least appropriate when the purchasers’ ability to change suppliers is limited.

请教NN，看过去的讨论说定位句是“supplier partnerships”

(10)     (arrangements in which the

purchaser forgoes the right to

pursue alternative suppliers), which

can inappropriately shelter suppliers

from rigorous competitive scrutiny

(15)     that might afford the purchaser

economic leverage.

哪位帮忙翻译一下，我实在不能将它与答案联系起来啊！看来是我理解有问题的。

先谢了！

In fact, "leverage" also means "advantage", maybe it will help u to understand the sentence better than the more abstract meaning "杠杆作用“

为什么要选择B呢? 合伙者是对于供应商起保护作用,那么与B有什么关系?请解答~~~~~~

原文意思为：supplier partnerships可以保护SUPPLIER不受审查，该审查本会为PURCHASER提供经济杠杆的。

            所以如果说实施了SP之后，S方不受检查了那么PURCHASER方面就失去了原本被提供的经济杠杆，

            即P无ADVANTAGE了，SO最后P需要PAY MORE才行了。

            不晓得分析的对否

SP可以让供应商逃避审查，而审查会给P带来好处。

那为啥P还favor SP咯。。。

我觉得，下面就是对应实施 sp 的 四种不同情况嘛， 有时候sp的实施是不可避免的