C

When selecting a high-performance desk lamp within a budget of $200, the correct approach is to balance price and performance, prioritizing products that meet basic lighting needs, offer practical functions, and ensure quality. The incorrect approach is to prioritize extremely low prices at the expense of quality or exceed the budget to pursue unnecessary features, resulting in reduced cost-effectiveness.

Option A: Priced at $50, this table lamp has severe flickering and a plastic shell that is prone to deformation. While the low price of $50 fits the budget, the flickering light can harm the eyes, leading to visual fatigue or even vision deterioration over prolonged use, contradicting the core function of a table lamp to protect eye health. The easily deformed plastic casing not only lacks durability but also poses safety hazards, as it may be damaged by heat or impact, leading to increased maintenance or replacement costs in the long run, making it extremely cost-ineffective from a long-term usage perspective.

Option B: Priced at $180, this minimalist desk lamp uses standard incandescent bulbs and lacks any adjustment features. While the $180 price is close to the budget limit, it only comes with energy-inefficient incandescent bulbs that have a short lifespan. Compared to LED or other energy-saving light sources, long-term use will result in higher electricity costs. Additionally, it lacks brightness and angle adjustment functions, making it unable to meet diverse lighting needs in different scenarios. Its limited functionality makes it difficult to justify the price, especially when there are more feature-rich, energy-efficient options available within the same budget. Therefore, it offers poor value for money.

Option C: Priced at $199, this desk lamp features an LED eye-friendly light source with three brightness settings and a sturdy metal base. While the price is close to the budget, it offers good value for money. The LED eye-friendly light source has no flicker and minimal blue light hazard, effectively protecting vision; the three brightness settings accommodate various scenarios such as reading and relaxation; the metal base enhances stability, reduces the risk of tipping, and extends the product's lifespan. Considering its functionality, lighting quality, and durability, it achieves a good balance between performance and price within the $200 budget, offering outstanding value for money.

Option D: Priced at $299, this decorative desk lamp features a luxurious design but has limited functionality. The lampshade is made of thin material, exceeding the budget by nearly $100, and its core functionality only meets basic lighting needs, lacking practical features such as brightness adjustment and eye protection. While the elegant design enhances aesthetics, the thin lampshade material may affect light uniformity and safety. Considering the alignment of functionality, quality, and price, the product exceeds the budget without delivering corresponding value improvements, failing to meet the principles of high cost-effectiveness.

B

When selecting a high-value desk lamp within the $300–$500 price range, the correct approach is to utilize the budget to choose products with rich features, high-quality materials, and reasonable pricing to achieve the best balance between performance and cost. The incorrect approach is to choose products with outdated features, excessive markups, or subpar quality.

Option A: $320, uses standard fluorescent bulbs, supports only single brightness adjustment, and has a plastic casing prone to wear and tear. At $320, it is equipped with energy-inefficient and short-lived fluorescent bulbs, and the single brightness adjustment feature fails to meet diverse lighting needs. The easily worn plastic casing not only affects aesthetics but may also shorten the product's lifespan. Compared to similarly priced products with LED lighting and multi-functional adjustment, this option lacks both functionality and quality, failing to fully utilize the value of this budget range and offering poor cost-effectiveness.

Option B: $480, featuring high-color-rendering LED lighting, smart ambient light sensing, and multi-angle adjustment. This metal and acrylic blend desk lamp, though close to the budget ceiling, offers true-to-life color reproduction suitable for activities like painting and reading. The smart ambient light sensing automatically adjusts brightness based on ambient light levels, enhancing usability. The multi-angle adjustment accommodates lighting needs from various directions. The combination of metal and acrylic materials ensures product quality and durability. Considering its advanced features and high-quality materials, it offers excellent value for money within the $300–$500 price range.

Option C: $580, a limited edition desk lamp with a unique design but no actual functional upgrades, using traditional incandescent bulbs. It exceeds the budget by $80, and its core functionality remains the outdated incandescent bulb, which has issues such as high energy consumption and a short lifespan. Although it has a unique design, it lacks practical features such as brightness adjustment and eye protection. The premium is primarily focused on aesthetic design rather than performance improvements, failing to provide users with value commensurate with the price, and thus does not meet the criteria for high cost-effectiveness.

Option D: $280, uneven light distribution, wobbly base, and a basic table lamp with only basic lighting functionality. Although the price is below the budget range, the uneven light distribution can cause eye strain, and the wobbly base poses a safety hazard. The basic lighting functionality fails to meet users' demands for light quality and functional diversity. The low quality of low-priced products may result in increased costs due to frequent repairs or replacements over time, making them overall poor value for money.

B

When selecting a desk lamp with a limited budget, the correct approach is to focus on the core value of the product and choose options that offer stable quality and practical features within the budget. Incorrect approaches include selecting products with extremely low prices but obvious quality defects, or exceeding the budget to pursue flashy but impractical features.

Option A: $60, lampshade prone to detachment, no brightness adjustment function, and dim lighting. While the $60 price is low, the lampshade's tendency to detach poses a safety hazard, and the lack of brightness adjustment makes it unsuitable for varying environmental needs. The dim lighting fails to meet basic lighting requirements for reading or work. Such low-cost, low-quality products not only impair the user experience but may also increase long-term costs due to frequent breakdowns, failing to maximize cost-effectiveness within the budget.

Option B: $150, LED light source, two-level brightness adjustment, and a stable base. This table lamp is moderately priced, with an LED light source that is energy-efficient and eye-friendly, and more durable than traditional bulbs. The two-level brightness adjustment meets daily reading and nighttime auxiliary lighting needs. The stable base ensures product stability and reduces the risk of tipping. It offers reliable quality and practical features at a reasonable price, achieving a good balance between performance and cost within a limited budget.

Option C: $280, a decorative desk lamp with a complex design but limited functionality. The lampshade material has poor light transmission, and despite the high price of $280, it only provides basic lighting functionality. The complex design increases costs without enhancing practicality, and the poor light transmission of the lampshade results in uneven light distribution, affecting lighting performance. The product's price does not align with its functionality. Within the same budget, more feature-rich products with better light quality are available, making this option poor value for money.

Option D: $400, a high-end table lamp with multiple smart features but some unstable functionality and poor heat dissipation. While it offers various smart features, it exceeds the limited budget, and some unstable functions may affect user experience. The poor heat dissipation of the housing poses safety risks and may shorten the product's lifespan. In a limited budget, overly pursuing high-end features while neglecting basic quality will result in a lower cost-effectiveness ratio, which is not a wise choice.

B

When selecting a durable and feature-rich desk lamp within your budget, the correct approach is to comprehensively evaluate product materials, functional practicality, and brand reliability to find the optimal balance between performance and price. The incorrect approach is to be misled by low-price traps or excessive marketing, neglecting the product's intrinsic value.

Option A: $80, made of plastic that is prone to cracking, offers only basic lighting, and lacks adjustable features. The low-quality plastic used in this lamp is prone to damage during daily use, lacks brightness, color temperature, and angle adjustment functions, and cannot meet diverse lighting needs. Its low-quality characteristics result in a short lifespan, and frequent replacements increase costs, failing to achieve the goals of durability and functionality, making it extremely cost-ineffective.

Option B: $220, a metal frame with high-quality LED lighting, dual brightness and color temperature adjustment, and a rotatable lamp head. This desk lamp offers a metal frame for structural stability and extended lifespan at a price of $220; the high-quality LED lighting provides eye protection and energy efficiency; dual brightness and color temperature adjustment accommodate various scenarios such as studying and leisure; and the rotatable lamp head meets different angle lighting needs. It balances durability and functionality within the budget, achieving a high cost-effectiveness ratio.

Option C: $350, a stylish but trendy desk lamp with a lampshade prone to fading, offering no functional upgrades over standard models. Despite its high price, it lacks core functional improvements, relying solely on its eye-catching design. The easily fading lampshade not only affects aesthetics but also indicates material quality issues. Its single-function design fails to justify the $350 price tag, making it an overpriced product prioritizing appearance over durability and functionality, which does not meet the selection criteria for durability and feature-rich performance.

Option D: $500, an imported desk lamp with high-end smart features but complex operation and poor after-sales service. Although it offers high-end smart features, it exceeds the general budget range. The complex user interface increases the learning curve, and poor after-sales service may result in issues that cannot be resolved promptly. The high price and usage costs make its cost-effectiveness difficult to meet the demand for high value within a budget.

B

When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of desk lamps within a budget constraint, the correct approach is to quantitatively compare the price with the functionality and quality to identify products that truly offer value for money. Incorrect approaches include overly focusing on low prices while neglecting quality, or blindly paying a premium for brand name or appearance.

Option A: $260, uses standard bulbs, non-adjustable brightness, and a plastic housing prone to yellowing. At $260, this lamp uses standard bulbs, lacks energy-saving and eye-protection features, and the inability to adjust brightness limits its usability. The yellowing plastic housing not only affects aesthetics but also suggests poor material quality, potentially leading to damage from aging over time. Its performance does not match its price, resulting in a low cost-effectiveness ratio.

Option B: $299, featuring eye-friendly LED lighting, three-level brightness adjustment, a metal base, and a USB charging port. At a price close to the $300 budget, this desk lamp offers eye-friendly LED lighting to protect vision health; three-level brightness adjustment to suit different environmental needs; a metal base for enhanced stability; and a USB charging port for added functionality. It achieves a comprehensive upgrade in functionality and quality within the budget, with balanced performance across all aspects and outstanding value for money.

Option C: $380, a limited-edition desk lamp with a unique design but average lighting performance, exceeding the budget by $80. The core lighting performance has not been improved, and the premium price is solely due to the unique design. It lacks practical features such as brightness adjustment and eye-friendly lighting, failing to provide users with value commensurate with the price. This is a typical high-price, low-performance product that does not meet the requirements for high cost-effectiveness within the budget.

Option D: $199, uneven lighting, wobbly base, a cheap desk lamp with only basic lighting. Although the price is below the budget, uneven lighting can cause eye strain, and the wobbly base poses a safety hazard. The basic lighting function alone cannot meet the needs of modern users. The low price results in low quality, which may lead to increased costs due to frequent replacements over time, making the overall cost-effectiveness low.

B

When purchasing a practical, high-quality desk lamp on a low budget, the correct approach is to prioritize light source quality, basic functionality, and material reliability, avoiding compromising product practicality by overly pursuing low prices or high-end features. Common mistakes include choosing low-quality, low-cost products or spending beyond your budget on products with redundant features but unstable quality.

Option A: $40, a desk lamp with a easily deformable lampshade, flickering light, and no adjustment features. This ultra-low-cost desk lamp at $40 has serious quality issues. The easily deformable lampshade affects lighting performance, flickering light can harm the eyes, and the lack of adjustment features makes it unsuitable for different scenarios. While these products are inexpensive, their quality defects result in a short lifespan, leading to higher costs in the long run and failing to meet high-quality standards.

Option B: $120, featuring energy-efficient LED lighting, adjustable brightness, and a durable ABS engineering plastic housing. This desk lamp offers energy-efficient LED lighting at a price of $120, which is more eye-friendly and energy-saving compared to traditional bulbs. The adjustable brightness function meets various needs such as reading and nighttime lighting. The durable ABS engineering plastic housing ensures product longevity. It achieves a balance between functionality and quality within a low budget, offering a practical high-quality experience at a reasonable price.

Option C: $200, a stylish but functionally limited desk lamp using ordinary incandescent bulbs. At $200, it still uses energy-intensive, short-lived incandescent bulbs and only provides basic lighting functionality. While it has an elegant design, it does not enhance practicality. In a low-budget scenario, this product is too expensive and underperforms, failing to offer good value for money and not meeting the criteria for practical, high-quality purchases.

Option D: $300, a desk lamp with multiple smart features but some of which are redundant, and poor heat dissipation. Although it offers various smart features, it exceeds the low-budget range, and some features are impractical. Poor heat dissipation may lead to product malfunctions or a shorter lifespan. In a limited budget, paying extra for impractical features and facing quality issues results in low overall value for money, making it an unsuitable choice for a low budget.

B

When selecting a table lamp that balances aesthetics and performance within a moderate budget, the correct approach is to find a product that combines design and practical functionality within the budget. The incorrect approach is to choose products with imbalanced aesthetics and performance or those significantly exceeding the budget.

Option A: $380, a minimalist-designed table lamp using standard fluorescent bulbs with no brightness adjustment functionality. While this lamp is close to the budget, standard fluorescent bulbs have issues such as high energy consumption and short lifespan, and lack brightness adjustment functionality, failing to meet diverse lighting needs. The minimalist design does not align with advanced performance, and within the same budget, there are more options that combine aesthetics and practical functionality, making it insufficient in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Option B: $450, a stylish desk lamp with a high-color-rendering LED light source, supporting brightness and color temperature adjustment. The lamp body is made of metal and glass. Although the price slightly exceeds the budget, the stylish design meets aesthetic requirements. The high-color-rendering LED light source accurately reproduces colors, making it suitable for reading, painting, and other scenarios. The brightness and color temperature adjustment functions allow it to adapt to different environments and usage needs. The metal and glass materials not only enhance the quality but also but also ensures the product's durability. Overall, it excels in both design and performance, achieving a good balance between aesthetics and functionality, offering excellent value for money.

Option C: $280, a uniquely shaped but glaring desk lamp with an unstable base and only basic lighting. Although the price is below the budget, the glaring light can harm the eyes and affect the user experience; the unstable base poses a safety hazard; and it only has basic lighting functionality, failing to meet performance requirements. The unique design cannot compensate for its performance shortcomings and does not meet the selection criteria of balancing aesthetics and functionality.

Option D: $550, an art sculpture-style lamp with a basic design, using incandescent bulbs. This high-end decorative lamp significantly exceeds the budget while using outdated incandescent bulbs, and its functionality is limited to basic lighting. Although the artistic sculpture design is highly decorative, the high price and basic functionality create a stark contrast, making it impossible to achieve a high cost-performance ratio that combines aesthetics and functionality within the budget.

B

When selecting a high-end desk lamp with a high budget, the correct approach is to compare the technical specifications, practical functionality, and quality assurance of products to choose one that fully reflects its premium value. The incorrect approach is to blindly pursue luxurious appearances or pay excessive premiums for unnecessary features.

Option A: $800, using standard LED lighting, only supports brightness adjustment, with a plastic housing. At $800, the price is significantly inflated for its specifications. Standard LED lighting and basic brightness adjustment are common in mid-to-low-end products on the market, and the plastic housing fails to convey the premium feel and durability expected of a high-end product. In the high-budget range, this product fails to deliver performance and quality commensurate with its price, resulting in extremely low value for money.

Option B: $1,200, featuring smart voice control, automatic light sensing adjustment, a lampshade made of nano-optical materials, and high-color-rendering eye-friendly LED lighting. Although this desk lamp is more expensive, the smart voice control and automatic light sensing adjustment enhance convenience and provide a more intelligent user experience; the nano-optical material lampshade ensures uniform and soft light distribution; and the high-color-rendering eye-friendly LED lighting effectively protects vision. It combines advanced technology with practical features, offering a high cost-performance ratio in the high-budget product category and providing users with an excellent user experience.

Option C: $1,500, a luxurious desk lamp with gold-plated and silver-plated accents but identical functionality to a standard desk lamp, using traditional light bulbs. The high price of this lamp primarily stems from its luxurious exterior decoration, while its core functionality still relies on outdated traditional light bulbs, lacking basic modern features such as brightness adjustment and eye protection. Overemphasizing appearance at the expense of performance results in a price that does not align with its actual value, failing to achieve high cost-effectiveness within a high budget.

Option D: $1,000, a desk lamp with multiple smart features but poor stability and obvious heat dissipation design flaws. Despite its smart features, poor stability renders some functions unusable, and the heat dissipation design not only shortens the product's lifespan but also poses safety risks. Under a high budget, quality issues prevent it from providing reliable performance to users, failing to meet the requirements for high cost-effectiveness.

C

When evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of a desk lamp within a limited budget, the correct approach is to start from the product's total lifecycle cost and usage value, and comprehensively analyze all influencing factors. The incorrect approach is to focus solely on a single factor, such as price or appearance, while ignoring the comprehensive consideration of long-term usage costs and performance.

Option A: Focusing solely on the initial purchase price of the desk lamp and using it as the sole selection criterion may result in purchasing low-quality products at a low price. For example, inexpensive desk lamps may use incandescent bulbs, which are energy-intensive and have a short lifespan, leading to significantly increased electricity costs and replacement expenses over time; or poor-quality materials may cause frequent damage, requiring frequent replacements, thereby increasing overall costs and failing to achieve true cost-effectiveness.

Option B: Focusing on the lamp's design, a stylish lamp with poor performance—such as poor lighting, high energy consumption, or limited functionality—may not meet long-term needs even if it fits the budget. Overemphasizing appearance over practicality may lead to the need for replacement due to inadequate lighting, resulting in unnecessary expenses and reduced long-term cost-effectiveness.

Option C: Conduct a comprehensive analysis of light source type (e.g., LED or incandescent bulbs), lifespan, energy consumption, and maintenance costs. The light source type determines the lamp's energy consumption and lifespan. LED light sources are more energy-efficient and have a longer lifespan than incandescent bulbs, resulting in long-term savings on electricity bills and replacement costs. Lamps with a longer lifespan reduce replacement frequency, lowering maintenance costs. By considering these factors comprehensively, one can more accurately estimate the total cost and value of the desk lamp over its entire lifecycle, thereby selecting a product that truly offers long-term cost-effectiveness.

Option D: Prioritize desk lamps with the most function buttons. However, having more function buttons does not necessarily mean the lamp is practical or durable. Some desk lamps may have multiple functions, but some of these functions may be rarely used or have poor stability, increasing product costs without enhancing actual value. Additionally, excessive features may complicate the product structure, increase failure rates, and raise maintenance costs, ultimately undermining long-term cost-effectiveness.

C

Balancing price and performance for desk lamps across different budgets requires a flexible strategy that adjusts purchasing priorities based on budget to achieve a reasonable match between performance and price. Incorrect strategies include blindly pursuing low prices, overly relying on brand names, or unrealistically pursuing high-end features.

Option A: Regardless of budget, always choose the cheapest desk lamp. This strategy ignores the potential performance improvements available at different budget levels. With a low budget, choosing the cheapest product may result in a low-quality, feature-limited desk lamp that fails to meet basic needs; with a high budget, still opting for a low-cost product wastes the budget that could have been used to obtain superior performance and experience, failing to maximize cost-effectiveness.

Option B: Focusing solely on brand recognition when the budget is high and ignoring actual product performance. Some well-known brands may have brand premiums, and choosing based solely on brand may result in purchasing products with inflated prices but performance comparable to or even inferior to other products in the same price range. When the budget is high, greater emphasis should be placed on product technological innovation, functional practicality, and quality assurance rather than relying solely on brand, otherwise it will be difficult to achieve a balance between price and performance.

Option C: When on a low budget, prioritize basic functions such as eye protection and brightness adjustment. With a medium budget, add smart adjustment features. With a high budget, pursue technological innovation. This strategy allocates demands reasonably according to budget tiers. A low budget ensures core functions meet basic needs; a medium budget expands functionality to enhance the experience; a high budget achieves performance leaps through technological innovation, ensuring each budget tier receives performance improvements commensurate with its cost, effectively balancing price and performance.

Option D: Overemphasizing high-end smart features in the medium budget range while neglecting product quality stability. With limited budget resources, overly pursuing high-end smart features may lead to compromises in materials and craftsmanship, affecting quality stability. While the product may offer many features, poor quality can result in a poor user experience and potentially increase costs due to frequent repairs or replacements, failing to achieve a good balance between performance and price within the budget.

C

When selecting a desk lamp, avoid budget pitfalls. The correct approach is to start from actual needs and choose products reasonably based on your budget. Incorrect approaches include ignoring quality due to a low budget, blindly spending more due to a high budget, or blindly following others' choices.

Option A: Purchase low-priced desk lamps indiscriminately when the budget is low, believing that they are sufficient as long as they work. However, low-priced desk lamps often have quality and performance defects, such as poor light quality and materials that are not durable. Indiscriminate purchases may result in frequent replacements in the short term, increasing overall costs. Additionally, poor lighting effects may affect vision health, making it seem like a budget-saving measure but actually resulting in losses.

Option B: When the budget is sufficient, only purchase the most expensive desk lamp to ensure quality. However, the most expensive desk lamp may not necessarily meet personal needs, potentially featuring redundant functions or features that are not practical. Additionally, high price does not always equate to high quality; some products may have markups due to brand, design, or other factors. Blindly choosing the most expensive option does not guarantee that every dollar is spent on improving performance or user experience.

Option C: Based on actual usage needs, select a desk lamp with necessary features and reliable quality within the budget. This approach prioritizes core functions (such as eye protection and brightness adjustment) and ensures the lamp is worth the price, effectively avoiding budget pitfalls. For example, lamps for studying should prioritize light quality and adjustment features, while lamps for leisure should focus on ambiance creation.

Option D: Refer to others' purchase prices and follow the trend to choose a desk lamp with the same budget as others. However, everyone has different needs for desk lamps, and others' budget choices may not suit you. Blindly following trends may result in purchasing a desk lamp with either excessive features beyond your needs, leading to budget waste; or failing to meet your needs, affecting the user experience, and unable to achieve precise alignment between budget and requirements.