lsat-18-1-13

qierliu · 发表于 2003-11-29 23:57:00

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.

答案是D
the author's argument和D是怎么联系的呢？而且我不明白the author's怎么得出lesson的，谢谢大牛指点

applemusic · 发表于 2003-11-30 08:48:00

题目看明白了么，题目的意思是，贸易保护是一个不好的政策。举了一个microcomputer 的例子来说明，美国政府试图为电脑制造商恢复电脑芯片市场，这些电脑制造商曾经受到了国外产品大量供给的冲击而停止了生产。政府的贸易保护政策就是通过进口配额和进口税来强迫国外产品提高价格，这样呢他们自己国家的产品就能重新打入市场。结论就是：贸易保护实际就是美国的制造商获利的同时，消费者就丧失利益。
author怎么得出 lesson要靠你的假设来打桥啊，题目只是说了个microcomputer的例子，在结论中却上升到了各个行业的制造商，当然假设就是，这个电脑的行业能够代表说有的行业啦，

Bensontuo · 发表于 2019-7-26 22:34:18

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.

lsat-18-1-13

lsat18 cr1-13

lsat-18-1-13

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()