Arboria is floundering in the global marketplace,incurring devastating losses in market position and profits. The problem is not Arboria’s trade policy. Arboria faces the prospect of continuing economic loss until Arborian business and political leaders recognize the fundamental differences between Arboria and foreign economic systems. Today the key trade issue is not free trade versus protectionism but diminishing trade versus expanding trade.
Arboria is operating with an obsolete trade policy, an artifact of the mid-1940s when Arboria and Whorfland dominated the global economy, tariffs were the principal obstacle to trade, and Arborian supremacy was uncontested in virtually all industries. In the intervening decades, economic circumstances have shifted radically. Arborian trade policy has not.
Today, Arbona's trade policy seems paralyzed by the relentless conflict between proponents of “free” and “fair” trade. The free traders argue that Arbonian markets should be open, and the movement of goods and services across national borders unrestrained. The fair traders assert that access to Arborian markets should be restricted until Arborian businesses are granted equal access to foreign markets. They contend that free trade is impossible whlie other nations erect barriers to Arborian exports.
Both are correct: fair trade requires equal access and equal access leads to free trade. But both sides base their positions on the same two outdated premises:
1.Global commerce is conducted under the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (IGAT) and dominated by Arboria and similar economic systems abroad.
2.Multilateral negotiations are the most effective way to resolve pressing trade issues.
Both assumptions are wrong. The 40-year-old GATT now covers less than 7 percent of global commerce. World trade is no longer dominated by the free-trade economies; nearly 75 percent is conducted by economic systems operating with principles at odds with those of Arboria. Forging a multilateral trade policy consensus among so many diverse economic systems has become virtually impossible. And while multilateral talks drag on, Arboria misses opportunities for trade expansion.
It can be inferred that the author of the passage would most likely agree with which of the following statements about multilateral trade negotiations?
They are the most effective way to resolve trade problems.
They are most effective in dealing with fair-trade issues between nations.
They have only recently begun to make an impact on world trade.
Arborian reliance on multilateral trade negotiations, while appropriate in the past, is inadequate for today's global marketplace.
The principles of multilateral trade negotiations are incompatible with current Arborian foreign trade policy.
题目分析:
文章推断题:关于多边贸易谈判作者最有可能同意以下哪点?
选项分析:
A选项:他们是解决贸易问题最有效的方法:与原文不符。原文说“both assumptions are wrong”,那么其中一个assumption就是“Multilateral negotiations are the most effective way to resolve pressing trade issues”。
B选项:他们是解决国家间公平贸易问题最有效的方法:与原文不符,同A。
C选项:他们只在最近开始影响世界贸易:原文没有提到他们开始的时间。
D选项:正确。Arboria对多边谈判的依赖之前是可行的但现在不适用全球市场了:结合最后一段可知,Arboria之前使其牛逼的政策已经过时了,因为Arboria的经济体系和大部分国家采用的经济体系不一样,那就没办法使用多边谈判,从而导致Arboria现在面临衰落。
E选项:多变谈判的原则已经不适用与Arboria现在的外贸政策了:真正的问题是Arboria现在采用的多变谈判原则不适用于世界市场,而不是多变谈判原则不适用于Arboria的政策。
定位的内容:最后一段。Forging a multilateral trade policy consensus among so many diverse economic systems has become virtually impossible. And while multilateral talks drag on, Arboria misses opportunities for trade expansion.
注意比对E 选项The principles of multilateral trade negotiations are incompatible with current Arborian foreign trade policy.
其中“ with current Arborian foreign trade policy.”是错误的,要注意修饰限定对对象的影响。
1.Global commerce is conducted under the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (IGAT) and dominated by Arboria and similar economic systems abroad.
2.Multilateral negotiations are the most effective way to resolve pressing trade issues. 理解反了,这两个是过时的premise