Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line

admin2014-09-18  35

问题     Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980 the United States International Trade Commission(ITC)has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies "dumped" their products in the United States at "less than fair value." Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.
    Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company.
    Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect. Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its com- petitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the United States company’ s products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.
    Perhaps the most brazen case oc- curred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to deice roads. The bizarre aspect of the com- plaint was that a foreign conglomerate with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The "United States" company claiming in- jury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the "Canadian" companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.
The passage suggests that which of the following is most likely to be true of United States trade laws?

选项 A、They will eliminate the practice of " dumping" products in the United States.
B、They will enable manufacturers in the United States to compete more profitably outside the United States.
C、They will affect United States trade with Canada more negatively than trade with other nations.
D、Those that help one unit within a parent company will not necessarily help other units in the company.
E、Those that are applied to international companies will accomplish their intended result.

答案D

解析 哪一个说法最符合美国贸易法的情况?A.将消除在美国的“倾销产品”。原文指出,此贸易法实行有可能违反其初衷。B.使美国产品在国外更有竞争力。同A,是某些人的愿望,但事实相反。C.对美加贸易比其他国家贸易负面影响更大。无。D.正确。有可能帮助母公司一部分,但却不一定也对另一部分有利。原文L23—27。E.“accomplish their intended result”原文未提。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/H0tO777K
本试题收录于: GMAT VERBAL题库GMAT分类
0

最新回复(0)