请大家帮帮我！

The modernmultinational corporation(multinational corporation:  is described as havingoriginated when the owner-managers of nineteenth-century British firms carryingon international trade were replaced by teams of salaried managers organizedinto hierarchies. Increases in the volume of transactions in such firms arecommonly believed to have necessitated this structural change.Nineteenth-century inventions like the steamship and the telegraph, byfacilitating coordination of managerial activities, are described as keyfactors. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century chartered trading companies,despite the international scope of their activities, are usually consideredirrelevant to this discussion: the volume of their transactions is assumed tohave been too low and the communications and transport of their day tooprimitive to make comparisons with modern multinationals interesting.多国（跨国）公司)

In reality,however, early trading companies successfully purchased and outfitted ships,built and operated offices and warehouses, manufactured trade goods for useabroad, maintained trading posts and production facilities overseas, procuredgoods for import, and sold those goods both at home and in other countries. Thelarge volume of transactions associated with these activities seems to havenecessitated hierarchical management structures well before the advent of moderncommunications and transportation. For example, in the Hudson’s Bay Company,each far-flung (far-flung:adj. trading outpost was managed by a salaried agent, who carried outthe trade with the Native Americans, managed day-to-day operations, and oversawthe post’s workers and servants. One chief agent, answerable to the Court ofDirectors (court ofdirectors:  in London through the correspondence committee, was appointed withcontrol over all of the agents on the bay.遥远的)董事会)

The early tradingcompanies did differ strikingly from modern multinationals in many respects. Theydepended heavily on the national governments of their home countries and thuscharacteristically acted abroad to promote national interests. Their topmanagers were typically owners with a substantial minority share (minority share: ,whereas senior managers’ holdings in modern multinationals are usuallyinsignificant. They operated in a pre-industrial world, grafting a system ofcapitalist international trade onto a pre-modern system of artisan and peasantproduction. Despite these differences, however, early trading companiesorganized effectively in remarkably modern ways and merit further study asanalogues of more modern structures.少数股份)

241. Theauthor’s main point is that

(A) modernmultinationals originated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with theestablishment of chartered trading companies

(B) the successof early chartered trading companies, like that of modern multinationals,depended primarily on their ability to carry out complex operations

(C) earlychartered trading companies should be more seriously considered by scholarsstudying the origins of modern multinationals

(D) scholarsare quite mistaken concerning the origins of modern multinationals（C）

(E) themanagement structures of early chartered trading companies are fundamentallythe same as those of modern multinationals

The modern multinational corporation is described as having originated when the owner-managers of nineteenth-century British firms carrying on international trade were replaced by teams of salaried managers organized into hierarchies. Increases in the volume of transactions in such firms are commonly believed to have necessitated this structural change. Nineteenth-century inventions like the steamship and the telegraph, by facilitating coordination of managerial activities, are described as key factors. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century chartered trading companies, despite the international scope of their activities, are usually considered irrelevant to this discussion: the volume of their transactions is assumed to have been too low and the communications and transport of their day too primitive to make comparisons with modern multinationals interesting.

In reality, however, early trading companies successfully purchased and outfitted ships, built and operated offices and warehouses, manufactured trade goods for use abroad, maintained trading posts and production facilities overseas, procured goods for import, and sold those goods both at home and in other countries. The large volume of transactions associated with these activities seems to have necessitated hierarchical management structures well before the advent of modern communications and transportation. For example, in the Hudson’s Bay Company, each far-flung trading outpost was managed by a salaried agent, who carried out the trade with the Native Americans, managed day-to-day operations, and oversaw the post’s workers and servants. One chief agent, answerable to the Court of Directors in London through the correspondence committee, was appointed with control over all of the agents on the bay.

The early trading companies did differ strikingly from modern multinationals in many respects. They depended heavily on the national governments of their home countries and thus characteristically acted abroad to promote national interests. Their top managers were typically owners with a substantial minority share, whereas senior managers’ holdings in modern multinationals are usually insignificant. They operated in a pre-industrial world, grafting a system of capitalist international trade onto a pre-modern system of artisan and peasant production. Despite these differences, however, early trading companies organized effectively in remarkably modern ways and merit further study as analogues of more modern structures.

The logics are concealed underneath the context, in my point, rather than in individual words. But we can surely find some hints from the wording, by which we can also draw a basic view regarding the author's purpose. In the first paragragh of the article, for example, there're couple of words you can take use of to find the author's preferenc, as bolded above. The author uses passive to describe the common view, rather than more direct and assertive subjective. Sort of opposition to that common view is concealed in this wording and is also traceable. We'd probably observe such opposition in the next paragraghs.  Given this expectation, it's much easier to understand the further argument.

And, we can also study the whole article piece by piece, or sentence by sentence. This approach is at least helpful for me. Check this out:

You're welcome.

Spend one or two hours on such kinda analysis, and stick on it for some ten days, you may have a better understanding on ETS articles.