请教GWD-9-Q28！纠结。。。

kingapple25

up

Outsider1988

同问
觉得其实没有weaken结论

newca

我有和ls一样的困惑：C的存在证明了不应该 reduce cheap steel imports， 但是不符合原题保护对象的论述啊

另外有2个问题：
1. the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry.  这句话什么意思，谁能解释一下这句话的推理关系

-- by 会员 kingapple25 (2009/10/15 11:00:00)

我也有相同的疑问啊，
个人认为But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry.的意思是不论前面提到的低价进口钢材现象的原因是什么，最终的代价都是Krenland钢铁行业的就业问题。所以后面才会说Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.
于是我就把industrial employment认为是steelmaker 的employment了。于是就很纠结为什么以钢材为原料的manufacturer的情况会对steelmaker和他们的employment有关，求帮助啊，这道题应该不是所谓的争议题吧？？

文春三刀禾

我个人认为C, D选项都是削弱原文但是 两个选项的侧重点不一样。请看原文的结论：Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports。 因此， 若政府减少进口钢材，则就会保护钢厂和工业就业。

C.   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.  此选项讲的是若减少进口便宜的钢材，则国内许多需要钢材作为原材料的公司会遭受损失。 因此否定文中减少便宜进口钢材的做法。

D.    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. 此选项讲的是由于技术进步，从而造成进口钢价的运费下降。因此否定的是文章中国外政府补贴的事实。 这个和结论无关。

crown48

[quote]
结论是

it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland

注意steel companies 和 industrial employment的关系，如果保护钢铁行业，那么钢铁的价格肯定上升，其他以此为主要原料的行业成本上升，就会没有竞争力了，industrial employment反而会降低

-- by 会员 ylbeins (2009/4/18 17:17:00)

[/quote
解释的非常好！谢谢！

mboo2005

这个题要是在考试时遇到，怎么选啊。太没有规律了。

to nn：有什么规律或方法吗？