gwd-17-13

cournot

Q13: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?

1. Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.
2. The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
3. 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.

4. 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.
5. 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.

the answer is C,谁帮我解释一下？

gonghao

这样：

K国的钢铁制造商正在失去国内市场因为呢进口价格太低，很多的原因是因为国外政府“极其无耻的”补贴。这样的补贴的后果就是把这样的价格又是呢转嫁到了工人的工作上『只有降低工资，才能降低成本，和国外钢铁有竞争力』但是这样就意味着工人大量的失业。因此呢，国家应该降低廉价钢铁的进口，不仅保护K国的钢铁企业也同时是保护就业。

问削弱

C：无论是面对国内还是国外的竞争压力，生铁总是钢铁业的一块非常大的成本。也就是说，及时你国家完全禁止国外钢铁，还是有相当大的一块成本落在了job的身上。换句话说，国外进口钢铁不是丢工作的主要原因，而是因为钢铁企业本身的成本太高。

像是一个它因削弱

gonghao

E没有任何意义，K国的工资和外国的工资有很大的不同，是多还是少啊？

cournot

谢谢斑竹，C是说生铁占了成本很大部分=>即使没有进口竞争，很高生铁成本还是会转嫁到工人身上=>影响就业

但是E说pay得不一样，如果k本来就pay得很高，那么企业就可以降低pay来降低成本，而不应该由政府来限制进口；如果k本来就pay得很低，那么就应该是其它成本太高导致，企业应该降低其它成本，而不不应该由政府来限制进口。这样理解可以么？

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-6-28 4:39:56编辑过]

gonghao

以下是引用cournot在2006-6-28 4:25:00的发言：

谢谢斑竹，C是说生铁占了成本很大部分=>即使没有进口竞争，很高生铁成本还是会转嫁到工人身上=>影响就业

但是E说pay得不一样，如果k本来就pay得很高，那么企业就可以降低pay来降低成本，而不应该由政府来限制进口；如果k本来就pay得很低，那么就应该是其它成本太高导致，企业应该降低其它成本，而不不应该由政府来限制进口。这样理解可以么？

恩，是的。至少我是这样想的。削弱结论“进口---造成－－pay压力”，有几种：1.不进口pay也有压力.2进口造不成pay压力3.其它原因造成的pay的压力

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-6-28 13:42:57编辑过]

cournot

知道了，多谢啦

xiangqinzh

NN

请教这句话

But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry.

jobs在这里怎么这样用呢,这句话都怪怪的

是成本进入工资里面的意思吗

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-10-20 9:00:41编辑过]