Question

Many United States companies have made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980, the United States International Trade Commission(ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies(补贴) by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies “dumped” their products in the United States at “less than fair value”. Even when no unfair practices are claimed, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief(救济).

Contrary to the general impression, this request for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop a complicated web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company. Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect. Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the United States company’s products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.

Perhaps the most shameful case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations(控诉) that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to deice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate(联合企业) with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The “United States” company claiming injury was a unit of a Dutch conglomerate, while the “Canadian” companies included a unit of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.

1.The passage is chiefly concerned with ________.

A. arguing against the increased internationalization of US corporations

B. recommending a uniform method for handling claims of unfair trade practices

C. warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences

D. advocating the use of trade restrictions for “dumped” products but not for other imports

2.What can be inferred about the minimal basis for a complaint to the ITC?

A. A foreign competitor is selling products in the US at less than fair market value.

B. A foreign competitor has greatly increased the volume of products shipped to the US.

C. The company requesting import relief has been banned from exporting products.

D. The company requesting import relief has been injured by the sale of imports in the US.

3.Which of the following is most likely to be true of US trade laws?

A. They will eliminate the practice of “dumping” products in the US.

B. Those applied to international companies will help to gain more profits.

C. They will affect US trade with Canada more negatively than trade with other nations.

D. Those helping one unit within a parent company won’t necessarily help other units.

Answer

1. C

2. D

3. D

【解析】

这是一篇说明文。文章指出美国一些国内厂商滥用贸易救济法案，但实际上这对美国公司的产品竞争力没有好处，而且往往会产生意想不到的后果。

1.主旨大意题。由第二段“Contrary to the general impression, this request for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. ”“Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect. ”第三段“Perhaps the most shameful case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations (控诉) that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to deice roads. ”可知，文章在警告影响贸易进口的法案的实施往往会产生意想不到的后果。故C选项正确。

2.细节理解题。由第一段Even when no unfair practices are claimed, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief (救济).可知，即便没有不公平做法的指控，简单声明某一产业受到了进口的损害就可以作为寻求救济的充分基础。言外之意就是该处的“简单声明”效果小于“对不公平做法”的指控，但是已经可以作为向ITC控告的基础。故D选项正确。

3.细节理解题。由第二段“The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company.”可知，这些关系的复杂性使得进口救济法案系统不太可能满足同一家母公司旗下的所有部门的战略需求。故D选项正确。