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 steelmaking 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?
Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers' revenue comes from exports.
The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
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.
Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen in recent years.
Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland do not differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.
steelmaker 和manufacturer是分别在说两个东西...脑子一抽就把manufacturer想成钢铁制造商了...
C的意思不是说得钢铁制造商,C说的是对于很多制造商来说,钢铁占其生产成本的很大一部分,言外之意就是,这些制造商都依赖于便宜的进口钢铁来保持竞争力,如果不进口便宜钢铁了,那么本国贵的钢铁会使他们的生产成本增加,削弱竞争力从而影响就业
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论