Explanation
Reading the question: this prompt defines price wars; then
it discusses how they are generally bad for everyone involved, but it can be
easy to get dragged into one. Supposing that we're not sure how to predict the
blank, we can use a basic filter. In this case, we can attempt to eliminate
answer choices that contradict the facts of prompt or are contrary to the
spirit of what is said.
Applying the filter: Choice (A) contradicts the prompt
because the prompt says companies would prefer high prices, not low prices. So
(A) is out. Choice (B) seems contradictory with itself, not to mention the
prompt: if you want to avoid it, why would you start it? Choice (C) is
definitely not contradictory with the prompt and sounds correct. Choice (D)
contradicts what we have been told--namely that, although these wars are
undesirable, you "cannot always afford to let a competitor lower price without
matching or lowering beyond that price." So (D) is out. Choice (E) does not
obviously contradict the prompt, so far as we can see. That leaves us with (C)
and (E).
Logical proof: Is (C) objectively better? It boils down to
whether it's more logical to be confusing or clear to your competitors. If (C)
happens, the companies are likely to avoid a price war: this is what they want,
we are told. If (E) happens, it will be easy for them to slip into a price war,
through semi-accident: we are told they do not want this. The correct answer is
(C).
If you believe you have found an error in this question or explanation, please contact us and include the question title or URL in your message.