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.
写这篇文章的是个编辑,不是钢铁制造商,也不是一些厂商
其次答案C里的是需要用钢的厂商,不是钢铁制造商,对象弄错,题意就错了!!!
C: 有国内市场和出口的厂商,大部分的成本花费在钢铁买卖上。 如果静止便宜的钢进来,那成本增高,公司获利少,失业率就下降,weak整个conclusion
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论