标题: lsat-18-1-13 [打印本页] 作者: qierliu 时间: 2003-11-29 23:57 标题: lsat18 cr1-13 13. Trade protection is bad policy. Take the case of the microcomputer industry. The United States government attempted to restore the computer chip market to United States manufacturers, who had ceased production in the face of an abundant supply of cheap chips from foreign manufacturers. Under trade protection, it was expected that, as government-imposed quotas and excise taxes forced the price of foreign chips to rise, United States manufactures would reenter the market. They did, but at only slightly lower prices that the now-high prices of foreign firms. The lesson has been simple: trade protection means that United States manufactures gain while United States manufactures gain while United States consumers lose.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the author's argument relies?
(A) It is unreasonable to expect that government-imposed quotas and excise taxes will reduce prices for United States consumers.
(B) United States manufacturers of computer chips are more concerned with high profits that are foreign manufacturers.
(C) The United States government's primary purpose in trade protection is to restore markets and profits to United States manufacturers.
(D) With respect to trade protection, the microcomputer industry is representative of United States industry in general.
(E) The quality of the chips produced by United States manufacturers is better than the quality of the chips produced by foreign manufacturers.
qierliu 发表于 2003-11-29 23:57
13. Trade protection is bad policy. Take the case of the microcomputer industry. The United States g ...
Spot the question type - Necessary Assumption
Core argument structure
P1: USA Gov attempted to restore the computer chip market to USA producers, which had ceased production due to the abundant supply of cheap chips from foreign producers.
P2: Under trade protections, it was expected that as imposing the quotas and excising taxes could forced the price of foreign chips to rise, and then USA producer will be reenter the market.
P3: They did, but at only slightly lower prices that the now high prices of foreign firms.
P4: Trade protection means that USA manufactures gain while USA consumer gain while USA consumer lose
C: Trade protection is bad.
um... Please don't be hustled by the long question here. The apparent flaw here is simple, the author assumed what happened at the industry of microchips could be sufficiently guarantee what would happened at the other industry.
A. Negate it. It is what happened. Prices of USA product is actually lowered than oversea products
B. Negate it, regardless of the fact that whether USA producers are " not more " or " more concerned with high profit does not necessary here. The figure of the price does not guarantee the profit of the price.
C. Negate it, whether its primary or not primary does not really destroy the argument.
D. Correct answer, if microchip industry is not representative of USA industry in general, then it is not sufficient enough to guarantee that all of " USA producer will gain more producer surplus "
E. Its not really relevant to the core of the argument. If you believe this is the correct answer, you must be assuming that consumers will buy only if its better quality.
