Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980 the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies "dumped" their products in the United States at "less than fair value." Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.
Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company.
Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect. Suppose a United States–owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the United States company's products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.
Perhaps the most brazen case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The "United States" company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the "Canadian'' companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.
The last paragraph performs which of the following functions in the passage?
It summarizes the discussion thus far and suggests additional areas for research.
It presents a recommendation based on the evidence presented earlier.
It discusses an exceptional case in which the results expected by the author of the passage were not obtained.
It introduces an additional area of concern not mentioned earlier.
It cites a specific case that illustrates a problem presented more generally in the previous paragraph.
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 C。因为最后一段讨论的是一个不寻常的情况,这个情况与作者之前在文章中所提到的结果完全相反。它强调了进口补贴法律可能会伤害到那些试图获得保护的公司,而不是帮助他们。