Board logo

标题: GWD1-36 [打印本页]
作者: jojofgasw    时间: 2006-1-20 20:50     标题: GWD1-36

In corporate purchasing,

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.

起初选B，答案也选B，后来仔细读了一遍，发现原文根本没提及paying more。后来感觉了一下应该选D。现在仍在困惑中，望高手指教！多谢！

作者: conquer    时间: 2006-1-20 21:18

B是对的.D不对,因为全文除了第一句讲了"direct"只外,全是讲"indiect purchases ". 对于"direct"没说可行不可行"supplier partner". B答案在第二段的27-30行(type1里讲的).

另外对于文章理解是: 讲在"indirect"里采取"supplier patterner"的形式有"inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scrutiny "的弊病,所以引出了"type1, 2, 3"的情行.我是这样理解的.

大家讨论.

加油啊!!!

作者: jojofgasw    时间: 2006-1-22 13:54

说实话，我也没发现有什么地方直接指出对direct是否可行，可是line27-30好象也没有直接说明corporations 会在SP的情况下paying more吧（我是这么理解的），如果我理解的不对，就麻烦高手帮我解释一下吧！多谢！

顺便说一下我对D的理解，文章一开头便说在direct的情况下，

corporations会进行competitive scrutiny.而在indirect的情况下corporations会favor SP，那是不是对indirect进行一下取非就可以得到D了。但取非需要有转折和对比的意思出现是才适用，这里没有，不过大家可以读出在direct和indirect之间有转折的含义么（我觉得有）





欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2