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.
[一道秒题。。。]
文段的意思是说国内的钢铁销量下降,因为进口钢铁的价格低,为了保护钢铁产业、维持就业率,政府应该禁止进口钢铁。
A选项:出口,无关❌
B选项:国际政策,这个与本国要禁止进口钢铁无关❌
C选项:对于很多制造商而言,钢铁是原材料巨大成本的一个来源✅如果不依赖于进口便宜的钢铁,制造商的成本压力会非常大,可能会裁员降低成本,影响就业了啊
D选项:进口成本下降了❌进口成本本来就低,对削弱结论没啥作用
E选项:国家之间行业工资对比,无关❌
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论