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

admin2009-04-18  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)
(5) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage
from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign
governments. Another 340 charge that foreign compa-
nies “dumped” their products in the United States at
“less than fair value.” Even when no unfair practices
(10) 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
(15) develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and
research relationships, The complexity of these relation-
ships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief
laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under
the same parent company.
(20) 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 competitor
(25) 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 uncompeti-
(30) tive in the United States, since they would be subject to
duties.
Perhaps the most brazen case occurred when the ITC
investigated allegations that Canadian companies were
injuring the United States salt industry by dumping
(35) rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the
complaint 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 injury was a subsidiary of a
(40) Dutch conglomerate, while the “Canadian” companies
included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the
second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.

选项 A、arguing against the increased internationalization of United States corporations
B、warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences
C、demonstrating that foreign-based firms receive more subsidies from their governments than United States firms
D、receive from the United States government
E、advocating the use of trade restrictions for “dumped” products but not for other imports

答案B

解析 The best answer is B. In the first sentence of the passage, the author characterizes the preoccupation of many United States companies with the search for legal protection from import competition as unfortunate. Then, in lines 12-14, the author explains that the “quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped.” The third paragraph discusses one situation in which United States companies might experience such injury-when import relief laws are used against foreign subsidiaries of United States company-and the last paragraph provides a specific example of this situation. Thus, it can be inferred that the author’s primary concern is to warn about possible unintended negative consequences of applying trade laws.
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/cytO777K
本试题收录于: GMAT VERBAL题库GMAT分类
0

最新回复(0)