求教

bobo1990

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?

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

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

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.

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.

E.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.
答案选C，可是我觉得B比较好呀？     求解释~~~

aomeisoft7

文章结论：为保护steel companies和industrial employment，政府要减少钢铁进口

保护了steel company的利益，却损害了那些以钢铁为原材料公司的利益
C选项，很多竞争很大的公司，要购买钢铁。如果减少进口，钢铁价格上升，这些公司的成本增多，就没有了市场竞争力。公司破产，造成更多的失业。削弱了结论

B选项，国际条例里没有明确说明，对补助出口行为的惩罚。和结论一点关系都没有