og11-96 求救

yalemba2007

96. Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country's markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets. If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other.

The commentator's argument relies on which of the following assumptions?

a) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation. 

b) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.

c)Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.

d)For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.

e)Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.

Argument Construction

Situation       The theory of trade retaliation is explained as the action and reaction of closing markets between trading nations; no country would ever trade with another, the observation is offered, if every country acted according to the theory.

Reasoning What assumption underlies this argument? What makes the commentator conclude that no country would be trading if the theory were operative? The commentator must perceive of
   some condition as a given here. The argument assumes an initial action, a country's closing of a market to a trading partner, that is followed by a reaction, the retaliatory closing of a market by that partner. In this unending pattern of action-reaction, at least one of the two countries must have a market closed to the other.

The correct answer is D.

前提: 贸易报复理论说那些被另外一个国家关闭了市场的国家也应该关闭一些他们自己的对另外一个国家的市场, 为了给那个国家压力,让它重新开放市场.

   结论: 如果每个国家都按照这个理论行动的话, 那国家之间就没有贸易了.

 Assumption: 对任意两个国家, 至少一个有一些市场对另外一个国家关闭了.

 Assumption: 对任意两个国家, 至少一个有一些市场对另外一个国家关闭了.

  尽管其他几个选项也不觉得合适,但是这个觉得有些太绝对了. 难道就不存在两个国家, 他们的市场互相都对对方开放吗?

请大家给分析一下. 多谢了.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-9-3 11:23:51编辑过]

yalemba2007

没有大N给回, 自己顶一下.