求助！OG12，第13篇（64-69），进口保护政策，65题求教

qaplwz

65Many 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
(5)   Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280
complaints alleging damage from imports that
benefit from, subsidies by foreign governments.
Another 340 charge that foreign companies
"dumped" their products in the United States at
(10) "less than fair value." Even when no unfair practices
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
(15) for import relief has hurt more companies than
it has helped. As corporations begin to function
globally, they develop an intricate web of marketing,
production, and research relationships. The complexity
of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system
(20) of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of
all the units under the same parent company.
Internationalization increases the danger that
foreign companies will use import relief laws against
the very companies the laws were designed to
(25) protect. Suppose a United States-owned company
establishes an overseas plant to manufacture
a product while its competitor makes the same
product in the United States. If the competitor can
prove injury from the imports—and that the United
(30) States company received a subsidy from a foreign
government to build its plant abroad—the United
States company's products will be uncompetitive in
the United States, since they would be subject to
duties.
(35)    erhaps the most brazen case occurred when
the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian
companies were injuring the United States salt
industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads.
The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a
(40) 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 Dutch conglomerate, while the "Canadian"
(45) companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm
that was the second-largest domestic producer of
rock salt.

65.    It can be inferred from the passage that the minimal
basis for a complaint to the International Trade
Commission is which of the following?

(A)    A foreign competitor has received a subsidy
from a foreign government.
(B)    A foreign competitor has substantially increased
the volume of products shipped to the United
States.
(c   A foreign competitor is selling products in the
United States at less than fair market value.
(D)    The company requesting import relief has been
injured by the sale of imports in the United
States.
(E)    The company requesting import relief has been
barred from exporting products to the country
of its foreign competitor.
此题问的minimal basis是什么意思？最小的偏差？意思是和原文最接近的?BE可以轻松排除，AC相当于原文的改写，解释上说虽然话对但不是minimal basis。。这个minimal basis到底什么意思。。

PoppinLD

是minimal basis（最低基准）
不是minimal bias（最低偏差）
你貌似是把单词看错了吧

qaplwz

Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.
答案是这句话，根据文章意思可以知道这个申诉是最过分的，因为它没有不平等的竞争，仅仅是因为受到来自进口贸易的损害就可以投诉，但是你想想，只要是做生意就可能会赔钱（而前面两种大多描写了一些不平等竞争导致的损失），这句话是只要进口贸易上赔钱了就能够投诉。也就是说这是文章中提到的投诉的最低标准了
而D就是这句话的改写
A和C是前面那两种申诉，他们所投诉的条件在文章中明显比D高
一点小看法而已

-- by 会员 PoppinLD (2012/6/11 10:11:51)

这么说minimal bias的意思是最低要求么？ 这题选是可以选出D。。就是不太了解他问的意思。

PoppinLD

Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.
答案是这句话，根据文章意思可以知道这个申诉是最过分的，因为它没有不平等的竞争，仅仅是因为受到来自进口贸易的损害就可以投诉，但是你想想，只要是做生意就可能会赔钱（而前面两种大多描写了一些不平等竞争导致的损失），这句话是只要进口贸易上赔钱了就能够投诉。也就是说这是文章中提到的投诉的最低标准了
而D就是这句话的改写
A和C是前面那两种申诉，他们所投诉的条件在文章中明显比D高
一点小看法而已

qaplwz

自己刷个防沉。。。。求大神啊求大神