Fish currently costs about the same at seafood stores throughout Eastville and its surrounding suburbs. Seafood stores buy fish from the same wholesalers and at the same prices, and other business expenses have also been about the same. But new tax breaks will substantially lower the cost of doing business within the city. Therefore, in the future, profit margins will be higher at seafood stores within the city than at suburban seafood stores.
For the purpose of evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to know whether
A)more fish wholesalers are located within the city than in the surrounding suburbs.
B)any people who currently own seafood stores in the suburbs surrounding Eastville will relocate their businesses nearer to the city
C)the wholesale price of fish is likely to fall in the future
D)fish has always cost about the same at seafood stores throughout Eastville and its surrounding suburbs.
E) Seafood stores within the city will in the future set prices that are lower than those at suburban seafood stores.
已經看過前人的討論
http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=6293
但還是想不出來
為什麼(E)可以證實profit margin比較高呢
如果照(E)來說的話, 既然city的seafood stores因為tax lower的關係可以成本較低
那把價錢也lower不就可能看不出來得到比較高的profit嗎
明明cost有比較好 為什麼會降價呢?
cost好又降價 那profit不就抵銷哩
如果是(D)
照題目所說new tax breaks will substantially lower the cost of doing business within the city
則tax cost在city的比較低的前提下,fish cost價錢不也得持穩不動
醬才看得出來有沒有profit比較好ㄚ
不然不就等於兩個cost不能確定會不會被消對抵銷
例如本來city tax有優勢 但從wholesaler買魚的cost提高了 所以並無法得到較優的獲利
so ...
why E 呢?
請教請教哩... -___-.. 鑽來鑽去鑽不出..
謝謝謝謝
