Q28:
Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:
Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?
A. Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.
B. The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
C. For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.
D. Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.
E. Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.
Answer:C
作者的逻辑是
钢构成了制造商生产成本的大部分，所以限制进口将会抬高钢的价格，使其成本上升，损害制造商的利益，所以不能保护他们的就业率。
这中间的GAP是不是太大了？
What is the gap you mentioned? I do not see a gap in the answer. The gap in the question is that limiting imports will help both the steel industry and overall industry\ial employment. The argument jumps from steel industry employment to overall industry employment.
C points out that manufacturers need good steel price to stay competitive. We can safely come to a conclusion that using high price domestic steel will reder these manufacturers uncomepetitive and their jobs will be lost.
so crystal clear, thanks a lot
What is the gap you mentioned? I do not see a gap in the answer. The gap in the question is that limiting imports will help both the steel industry and overall industry\ial employment. The argument jumps from steel industry employment to overall industry employment.
C points out that manufacturers need good steel price to stay competitive. We can safely come to a conclusion that using high price domestic steel will reder these manufacturers uncomepetitive and their jobs will be lost.
I read a bunch of Mindfree's posts...but all of them turned out to be English...weird though...anyway, thx a million for such a crystal-clear explanation. You deserve the title...the King of CR...probably, Laywer could be your counterpart.
这题感觉是C，感觉是ETS在玩偷梁换柱的把戏
但是说不出个所以然，后来看了mindfree的解释果然云开雾散
多谢前辈
看来是没人给说了。我感觉我们是走进了一敦煌莫高窟。看着满墙的仙女满是热闹，想凑进去一起飞天，才发现空无一人，热闹的尽是前人的遗迹。我们只是来瞻仰的。有没有咒语一念，可以让墙上的这些前辈高人，转世投胎，再来传授独孤九剑呢？还是永远只能是躺在故纸堆里，我们的跟贴也落个***到此一游的境地。
我来说说吧。这道题是个错误，五个选项没一个合理。我一开始选C，道理和大家的一样。但是仔细一想不对，industrial employment可以是前面钢铁工业的指代，如果是语法题的话，没人会否认它是指代钢铁工业而不是普遍意义上的工业吧。如果是的话，那么C就无关了。如果不是，就算这是概念跳跃，指普遍意义上的工业，但竞争力下降一定带来失业吗？肯定不是咯。成本除了原材料成本还有运营成本，就算要降低人力成本也可以降薪而不是裁员。就算裁员，M的裁员也可能小于S的增员（由于国内市场份额大了，效益好进而扩大生产和人员），那总的工业失业也还是提高的。总之，靠C来weaken实在站不住。
我觉得9楼过度推理了。mindfree讲得很清楚。
如果按照语法题讲的话，我认为在industrial employment前面加上定冠词the才指代前面出现的钢铁工业。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |