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 competitiors by selling a product below cost.
B. Airline executives generally believe that a company that once underpriced its fars to drive away competitiors is very likely to do so again if new competitors emerge.
C. As part of promotions designed to attrat 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.
I chose E. The given correct answer is B. 怎么理解 B 呢? 好象想表明一旦降价成功, 别的航空公司就撤退了? 可实际上不一定吧...
我感觉这个选项实际削弱结论: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. E与长期profitable无关,无法削弱.
同意B, 因为只要有新竞争者加入,这些航空公司就不会" recoup the earlier losses by charging high fares and provide a better opportunity to competitors ", 也就是说只要竞争者存在,就不会有提升价格的机会, 所以weaken结论, 而E, the total number of air passengerss大量增加了则有加强结论的含义,即这些航空公司因降价带来的损失更不易恢复,其他竞争者的优势就更强了.
