一題他因的邏輯 請幫忙討論一下吧!!

changichun

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?

Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.

The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.

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.

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.

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.

答案是c  

我理解的思維是

Krenlandian manufacturers 國內市場小

主要是因為成本問題

而不是外國政府的補助

不知道是不是這樣啊?!

另外  我想問問  D選項有什麼不妥?!

好像也是另一個他因啊?!

不是因為政府補助  而是運送成本低~~

不知道這樣想  錯在哪裡呢?!

seventree

由于低价进口钢铁， K城的钢铁（原材料）供应商正在失去他们的国内市场，（因为）在遇到国际贸易障碍的情形下，外国政府一般都会补贴他们的钢铁工业(这是外国钢铁低价的原因)。.........因此，如果政府要采取措施减少低价钢铁进口量，不但可以保护本国钢铁行业，而且还可以保护本行业的雇员。

C说 对于那些面临着国际国内市场竞争的钢铁制造商们，用在采购原材料－钢铁上的钱最多，那么如果减少进口外国的低价钢铁，他们的cost自然要上升  所以说weaken了原文的论点

这样饶人的一道题，要求政府采取措施的是钢铁(原材料)供应商，而不是钢铁行业的所有制造商.

是这样理解吧