Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/formosam/public_html/phpBB3/includes/bbcode.php on line 112
FormosaMBA 傷心咖啡店 • 檢視主題 - GWD1-36

GWD1-36

GMAT 考的是閱讀....閱讀....還是閱讀....

版主: shpassion, Traver0818

Re: GWD1-36

文章agustin » 2005-11-20 05:17

liwuu \$m[1]:
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



文中第一句 在直接採購終端商品時 企業會用competitive scrutiny來挑供應商 (有點類似公開招標 然後詳審各廠商資格 然後比價議價 最低價者決標)

然後再採購非直接商品(indirect purchases)時 例如廣告 法律服務等等
企業偏好採用supplier partnerships

第36題的D不對 是因為 我們無法結論說 在直接購買終端商品時 供應商策略聯盟這方法不可行

跳出文章來說 在事實上 雖然有很多公司是公開招標 但也有很多公司在採購時不招標 而是直接指定廠商 雖然價錢可能比較高 但是老闆爽!!(背後原因很多啦-也許供貨穩 交期快 老闆更在乎這個優勢 而不在乎價錢) 所以策略供應也是常見於商場上的....
頭像
agustin
中級會員
中級會員
 
文章: 82
註冊時間: 2005-09-11 01:23

文章agustin » 2005-11-20 05:22

sleek \$m[1]:另外請教"competitive scrutiny"--要如何翻譯較適合?

謝謝!


競價比價


我不確定..... *-)
頭像
agustin
中級會員
中級會員
 
文章: 82
註冊時間: 2005-09-11 01:23

文章jim9619 » 2005-12-08 13:34

公開招標如何??
jim9619
初級會員
初級會員
 
文章: 71
註冊時間: 2005-06-23 23:28

文章stellaadixen » 2006-12-08 12:53

請問為何37題是e?
stellaadixen
中級會員
中級會員
 
文章: 112
註冊時間: 2006-03-11 20:20

文章fsab00037748 » 2007-01-14 13:36

Q37應該是D吧: according to the passage,看明顯從文章中表述出的訊息"In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny is typically limited to suppliers of items that are directly related to end products. With “indirect” purchases (such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production,"

GWD1-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
B. The number of suppliers of the purchased item available to the purchasing company
C. The methods of negotiation that are available to the purchasing company
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
頭像
fsab00037748
中級會員
中級會員
 
文章: 156
註冊時間: 2006-02-17 13:30

Re: GWD1-36

文章pimi » 2007-01-22 21:13

bugubugu \$m[1]:
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.


liwuu \$m[1]: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.




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.
Ans:C

我覺得C跟D感覺好像ㄛ 8-) 想請各位大大指導一下, D 到底哪裡錯了, 因為當初我做答就在C跟D間作掙扎, 結果選了D :sad
pimi
高級會員
高級會員
 
文章: 388
註冊時間: 2005-01-21 14:50

文章A級垂耳兔 » 2007-01-22 23:21

我覺得C跟D感覺好像ㄛ 想請各位大大指導一下, D 到底哪裡錯了, 因為當初我做答就在C跟D間作掙扎, 結果選了D


本篇文章並沒有說到有什麼problem...
頭像
A級垂耳兔
高級會員
高級會員
 
文章: 451
註冊時間: 2006-09-04 17:47
來自: 台北市

文章kaijen » 2007-06-17 15:02

請問一下 有沒有人可以翻譯這段話
, which can inappropriately shelter suppliers
from rigorous competitive scrutiny
that might afford the purchaser economic leverage.
不是很了解 作者的意思 shelter當何用?? afford是提供的意思吧??
採用suppliers partnerships 到底是可以得到economic leverage還是失去呢??
謝謝
Kevin Wang
Candidate for MBA, Class of 2011
Duke University, The Fuqua School of Business
kaijen.wang@fuqua.duke.edu
頭像
kaijen
中級會員
中級會員
 
文章: 177
註冊時間: 2006-06-01 01:14

文章FIG » 2007-07-05 19:06

kaijen \$m[1]:請問一下 有沒有人可以翻譯這段話
, which can inappropriately shelter suppliers
from rigorous competitive scrutiny
that might afford the purchaser economic leverage.
不是很了解 作者的意思 shelter當何用?? afford是提供的意思吧??
採用suppliers partnerships 到底是可以得到economic leverage還是失去呢??
謝謝


它可以不適當地保護suppliers避開激烈的競爭
但這樣的競爭其實可以提供買家 economic leverage
(不知怎翻,就當更好的財務條件吧)

有錯請指正囉...
頭像
FIG
初級會員
初級會員
 
文章: 72
註冊時間: 2007-06-03 16:31

文章rainwang » 2008-04-25 18:08

請問畫線部分要怎麼翻呢??

There are two independent variables—availability of alternatives and ease of changing suppliers—that companies should use to evaluate the feasibility of subjecting suppliers of indirect purchases to competitive scrutiny.

這裡的subject是什麼意思? 跟後面的 to competitive scrutiny 一起看嗎?

謝謝^^
rainwang
新手會員
新手會員
 
文章: 14
註冊時間: 2008-01-18 20:21

文章Kal-El » 2008-06-08 01:33

1.subject A to X 使A遭受X

2.yes
Kal-El
中級會員
中級會員
 
文章: 188
註冊時間: 2007-06-22 12:34

上一頁

回到 GMAT Reading Comprehension 考區

誰在線上

正在瀏覽這個版面的使用者:沒有註冊會員 和 7 位訪客