GWD1-36

[liwuu]

Q36:
Which of the following can be inferred about supplier partnerships, as they are described in the passage?

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

答案是B,答案D錯的原因是因為文章中沒有直接提到嗎?因為我覺得D也不錯

[bugubugu]

幫你附上文章給其他高手解解...
Q35 to Q37:
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?

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

答案是B,答案D錯的原因是因為文章中沒有直接提到嗎?因為我覺得D也不錯

我覺得是因為文章中說到partnerships的部份...
是為了分析indirect purchases所提四種情況的第四種...
但D選項確指direct purchases所以錯...

[micht]

corporations often favor “supplier partnerships”
(10)arrangements in which the
purchaser forgoes the right to
pursue alternative suppliers), which
can [highlight=pink]inappropriately [/highlight]shelter suppliers
from rigorous competitive scrutiny
(15)that might afford the purchaser
economic leverage.


採用 supplier partnership 又失去了可以選擇其它suppliers的機會

文中用了 "inappropirately" (-)Negative attitude 說明了supplier partnership代來的Negative consequence是:

雖然可以shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scruitny但卻因此失去了economic leverage的機會.



這裡做者在暗示 其實supplier partnership並不會比較好 因為corporation可能會付更多的錢(因為corporation可以從競爭激烈的市場從中穫利; 如果選則了故定的suppliers就無法再選則價格低的suppliers. 也許當出選擇的supplier 當時是最便宜的~但市場波動後就不再是了

不太會解釋~大概是這麼意思吧
誰能幫幫忙解釋一下

Q36:
Which of the following can be inferred about supplier partnerships, as they are described in the passage?

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

[Behemoth]

36題不就是b嗎
主要把第二段的幾種情形看完應該就沒問題

簡單說,獨占市場比完全競爭市場的價錢要貴
就是b了

[汪汪北鼻]

Q36:
同意micht的說法

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

A.They cannot be sustained unless the goods or services provided are available from a large number of suppliers.
B.They can result in purchasers paying more for goods and services than they would in a competitive-bidding situation. (若買賣雙方勾結程度過高，會導致價格彈性過低，賣方也因此哄抬價格，買方只能含淚接受賣方所開出的價位，所以就給它買貴了 )

C.They typically are instituted at the urging of the supplier rather than the purchaser.
D.They are not feasible when the goods or services provided are directly related to the purchasers’ end products.
E.They are least appropriate when the purchasers’ ability to change suppliers is limited.

[Clara]

Q37:
According to the passage, which of the following factors distinguishes an indirect purchase from other purchases?

A. The ability of the purchasing company to subject potential suppliers of the purchased item to competitive scrutiny.

D. The relationship of the purchased item to the purchasing company’s end product


E. The degree of importance of the purchased item in the purchasing company’s business operations




正確解答e
當時我選a;因為direct purchasing company可以執行'scrutiny的能力',而indirect company沒有辦法

後來仔細想想d好像也不錯;
一種是直接產生最終財的company
一種是服務類型的company(computer, legal services....)


這兩個選項如何排除???

感謝

[nicoleliu]

Q37 答案不是D嗎???
更新版解答上的答案是D阿...........

[cocaine]

Q37 答案不是D嗎???
更新版解答上的答案是D阿...........

Q37:D 沒錯.
A.原文中有提到間接的supplier也能scrutiny ,所以A不對唷
There are two
independent variables—availability
of alternatives and [url]ease of changing
suppliers—that companies should
(20) use to evaluate the feasibility of
subjecting suppliers of indirect
purchases to competitive scrutiny.

[nicoleliu]

thanks~~~cocaine
agree!

[davidlee0222]

差點把小弟嚇死
找N次找不到E..

[simommmm]

corporations often favor “supplier partnerships”
(10)arrangements in which the
purchaser forgoes the right to
pursue alternative suppliers), which
can [highlight=pink]inappropriately [/highlight]shelter suppliers
from rigorous competitive scrutiny
(15)that might afford the purchaser
economic leverage.


採用 supplier partnership 又失去了可以選擇其它suppliers的機會

文中用了 "inappropirately" (-)Negative attitude 說明了supplier partnership代來的Negative consequence是:

雖然可以shelter suppliers from rigorous competitive scruitny但卻因此失去了economic leverage的機會.


這裡做者在暗示 其實supplier partnership並不會比較好 因為corporation可能會付更多的錢(因為corporation可以從競爭激烈的市場從中穫利; 如果選則了故定的suppliers就無法再選則價格低的suppliers. 也許當出選擇的supplier 當時是最便宜的~但市場波動後就不再是了

老實說 我當時整個的看成"削弱了supplier的競爭力,提供(afford)purchaser economic leverage"
要避免這樣的誤解 是不是得靠前後文判斷呢??
唉唉 自以為有讀懂這篇文章 沒想到錯了2題

[whoopsnow]

Q 35
Which of the following best describes the relation of the second paragraph to the first?
A. The second paragraph offers proof of an assertion made in the first paragraph;
B. The second paragraph provides an explanation for the occurrence of a situation described in the first paragraph.
C. The second paragraph discusses the application of a strategy proposed in the first paragraph.
D. The second paragraph examines the scope of a problem presented in the first paragraph.
E. The second paragraph discusses the contradiction inherent in a relationship described in the first paragraph.

咖啡店答案C, 小弟的答案B...
我的想法：
第一段末提到：有兩個獨立變因→選擇性的有無，與轉換供應商的容易度
因此造成四種情形(This can create four possible SITUATIONS)

所以在選項B提到 The second paragraph provides an explanation for the occurrence of a SITUATION described in the first paragraph... (第二段解釋第一段一種情形的出現) 小弟覺得合情合理

反倒是選項C提到的 The second paragraph discusses the appication of a STRATEGY proposed in the first paragraph... (第二段討論第一段一種策略的應用)似乎太武斷了一點。作者提出了兩種變因，並根據排列組合在第二段提出四種可能的結果。實在很難說，這是一個策略的應用(application of a strategy)。

請各位大大賜教....

[sleek]

to whoopsnow:

我原來也是選B,解法與想法與你相同

後來仔細思考發現問題在L19-L20的這句話
"that companies should use to evaluate the feasibility "
說明了:companies 應該要去用這二個獨立變因去評估可行性,也就是去"運用這二個獨立變因的搭配"(="the application of a strategy"!)

如果沒有這句話,我認為B比C好,但有了這句話C比B好

供您參考! 歡迎討論!

[sleek]

另外請教"competitive scrutiny"--要如何翻譯較適合?

謝謝!

[suechi915]

這恐怕要問管理大師了吧
只能意會 似乎很難會有精確的中文吧 我想