OG-10

芙蓉菜菜 · 发表于 2005-5-31 13:37:00

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.

这篇文章不知道为什么我读的非常晕。整篇的文章的结构搞不清，三段首句中的import relief到底是什么意思啊，题目中有三道考到这句话，真的郁闷死了。

大家给我点意见吧！谢谢

而今迈步从头越 · 发表于 2005-5-31 16:52:00

输了一堆，全没有了！呜呜！

而今迈步从头越 · 发表于 2005-5-31 16:59:00

Again.

P1 presents an economic phenomenon that many american companies seek for import relief when facing import competition, and then states that this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped and lists some reasons.

P2 states that internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect and gives examples.

So I think this passage is a phenomenon explanation, explaning that import relief will hurt american companies themself when internationalization increases.

而今迈步从头越 · 发表于 2005-5-31 17:01:00

I think import relief is some protection of domestic products and a limitation of foreign products.

芙蓉菜菜 · 发表于 2005-6-1 09:07:00

先感谢，再仔细看

irisqingyu · 发表于 2006-2-20 23:18:00

Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.

这句话怎么理解呀???

irisqingyu · 发表于 2006-2-20 23:21:00

minimal basis 是否可理解为本impossible basis?

cw_chan · 发表于 2006-6-7 13:45:00

Even
when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.

即使没有不公平的实践的声明,只要简单的讲该行业被进口伤害已足够寻求保护.

cw_chan · 发表于 2006-6-7 13:46:00

minimal basis 是否可理解为本impossible basis?

理解为sufficient grounds 更好.

OG-10

OG-10

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()