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 But both sides base their positions on the same two outdated premises: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.
The passage is primarily concerned with
illustrating the erosion of Arboria's position in the world marketplace
examining the differences between "free" and "fair" traders
advocating a reassessment of Arboria's trade policy
criticizing the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
comparing the different economic circumstances of Arboria s trade partners
题目分析:
文章主旨题
选项分析:
A选项:展示了Arboria在世界市场上的地位削弱:Arboria的地位衰退是整体文章针对的一个现象,但作者的本意不仅仅是描述这个现象,更重要的是指出背后的原因和警示政策指定人采取相应的措施。
B选项:研究free traders和fair traders之间的差别:文章只有一小段对他们各自的特点进行描述,但这不是作者写这篇文章的目的。
C选项:鼓励对Arboria外贸政策的重新评估:作者指出Arboria现在存在的不足,目的是为了让其认识到不足并且采取相应措施。
D选项:批评GATT的条款:文章没有涉及到。
E选项:比较Arboria贸易伙伴的不同的经济处境:文章没有涉及到。
A选项:"illustrating" the erosion of Arboria's position in the world marketplace展示了Arboria在世界市场上的地位削弱:Arboria的地位衰退是整体文章针对的一个现象,但作者的本意不仅仅是描述这个现象,更重要的是指出背后的原因和警示政策指定人采取相应的措施。
the erosion of Arboria's position in the world marketplace只是文章开头描述的现象,不是本文主旨(要分清开头给出的【现象】和【主旨】的区别)
illustrate = show(更偏向于"展示"而不是"解释")
作者主旨并非show这一现象!
同时,文章也有呼吁的特征:policy makers不怎么怎么样,就会怎么怎么样!
C选项:advocating a "reassessment" of Arboria's trade policy鼓励对Arboria外贸政策的重新评估:作者指出Arboria现在存在的不足,目的是为了让其认识到不足并且采取相应措施。
reassessment:If you make a reassessment of something, you think about it and decide whether you need to change your opinion about it.
完整含义是:重新评估并决定是否修正
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论