OG48-10(Business)(難度適中)

[agk99]

Passage 10(Business type)

Many United States companies have, unfortunately(負面字，請小心，可能是problem文章), made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work(家常便飯). Since 1980 the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging(宣稱) damage from imports that benefit from subsidies 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 alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief(向政府尋求協助).
第一段總結：講的是海外政府補貼企業，以及海外企業削價競爭，所以國內企業沒事就要求政府協助；第一段還有一點沒有注意到但卻考出來的考點，就是一般會注意到有二個考點，海外政府的補助及傾銷，事實上，還有第三種，就是沒是就宣稱他們受到貿易傷害，特別注意

Contrary to the general impression(很明顯與上段產生轉折), this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped(愛之適足以害之). As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate(錯綜複雜) 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(例證法) 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.
第二段總結，講的是另一種狀況，或是一個反面狀況，就是
美國企業在海外建立一個工廠，同時也有競爭對手在美國做同樣生意，只要這位對手證明海外的同業傷害他，並且證明這家海外廠接受海外政府的補助，那麼在海外設廠的企業根本不能在美國競爭，因為違法了。

Perhaps the most brazen(shameless) case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre(奇形怪狀) aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate(大型企業) with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The “United States”(必考:結果沒考) company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the “Canadian” companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.
第三段明顯是第二段的延伸，第二段是以 suppose開始，第三段則與實例，解釋這種 paradox的現象

55. The passage is chiefly concerned with (主題題型)
(A) arguing against the increased internationalization of United States corporations
(B) warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences
(C) demonstrating that foreign-based firms receive more subsidies from their governments than United States firms receive from the United States government
(D) advocating the use of trade restrictions for “dumped” products but not for other imports
(E) recommending a uniform method for handling claims of unfair trade practices

*56. It can be inferred from the passage that the minimal basis for a complaint to the International Trade Commission is which of the following?(A) A foreign competitor has received a subsidy from a foreign government. (外國政府補助)
(B) A foreign competitor has substantially increased the volume of products shipped to the United States.(大量進口)
(C) A foreign competitor is selling products in the United States at less than fair market value.(傾銷)
(D) The company requesting import relief has been injured by the sale of imports in the United States.
(E) The company requesting import relief has been barred(阻礙) from exporting products to the country of its foreign competitor.
答案給D，看解答才知道，原來是問第一段的三種投訴方式，顯然是答案選項中的D，是最最沒依據的抱怨申訴狀況，至於B,E則是原文未提及

57. The last paragraph performs which of the following functions in the passage?
(A) It summarizes the discussion thus far and suggests additional areas of research.
(B) It presents a recommendation based on the evidence presented earlier.
(C) It discusses an exceptional case in which the results expected by the author of the passage were not obtained.
(D) It introduces an additional area of concern not mentioned earlier.
(E) It cites a specific case that illustrates a problem presented more generally in the previous paragraph.

*58. The passage warns of which of the following dangers?
(A) Companies in the United States may receive no protection from imports unless they actively seek protection from import competition.
(B) Companies that seek legal protection from import competition may incur legal costs that far exceed any possible gain.
(C) Companies that are United States-owned but operate internationally may not be eligible for protection from import competition under the laws of the countries in which their plants operate.
(D) Companies that are not United States-owned may seek legal protection from import competition under United States import relief laws.
(E) Companies in the United States that import raw materials may have to pay duties on those materials.
答案給D，做錯的理由是沒看到C選項中的 under the laws of the countries in which their plants operate.

59. The passage suggests that which of the following is most likely to be true of United States trade laws?
(A) They will eliminate the practice of “dumping” products in the United States.
(B) They will enable manufacturers in the United States to compete more profitably outside the United States.
(C) They will affect United States trade with Canada more negatively than trade with other nations.
(D) Those that help one unit within a parent company will not necessarily help other units in the company.
(E) Those that are applied to international companies will accomplish their intended result.

60. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which of the following about the complaint mentioned in the last paragraph?
(A) The ITC acted unfairly toward the complainant in its investigation.
(B) The complaint violated the intent of import relief laws.
(C) The response of the ITC to the complaint provided suitable relief from unfair trade practices to the complainant.
(D) The ITC did not have access to appropriate information concerning the case.
(E) Each of the companies involved in the complaint acted in its own best interest.

結論
如果每一篇閱讀都像這一篇就好了，至於類型還要再討論，判斷類型仍是大問題

[lunar916]

請問59為啥是 D???
我看不出文章哪裡有指證 D 的答案說...

[best555tw]

In lines 16-19 the author warns that it is “unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company--> Thus, it can be inferred that the United States trade laws dealing with import relief will not necessarily help all units of a company

[lunar916]

喔~ 感謝~

[uioxcv]

這一題的第三段到底在說明什麼?文法結構好複雜喔~不會翻它的意思~有沒有高手可以幫忙解釋一下的>"<~謝謝喔~~

[best555tw]

第三段(實際上是第四段吧)

舉上一段描述情況的例子

大概是說

一個在美國運作的外國企業集團反而可以藉由ITC去消弱在外國運作的美國企業
因為ITC本來就是設計來保護美國企業的
所以這種情況非常的brazen

[davidslin]

這一題的第三段到底在說明什麼?文法結構好複雜喔~不會翻它的意思~有沒有高手可以幫忙解釋一下的>"<~謝謝喔~~

這段我做第三次時才看懂
主要說是ITC調查一件申訴加拿大鹽業公司侵害美國鹽業的案件
怪異的是那是由在[美國營運的國外跨國公司],請求ITC幫忙對抗在[國外營運的美國公司]
而宣稱受損的[美國營運的國外跨國公司]其實是荷蘭企業的在美國的分支機構,[國外營運的美國公司]則是一家芝加哥公司的國外分公司(在加拿大)

[cecilia1211]

請問一下 這一題的
60. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which of the following about the complaint mentioned in the last paragraph?
(A) The ITC acted unfairly toward the complainant in its investigation.
(B) The complaint violated the intent of import relief laws.
(C) The response of the ITC to the complaint provided suitable relief from unfair trade practices to the complainant.
(D) The ITC did not have access to appropriate information concerning the case.
(E) Each of the companies involved in the complaint acted in its own best interest.

為什麼答案不是e 是b阿 謝謝

[davidslin]

請問一下 這一題的
60. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which of the following about the complaint mentioned in the last paragraph?
(A) The ITC acted unfairly toward the complainant in its investigation.
(B) The complaint violated the intent of import relief laws.
(C) The response of the ITC to the complaint provided suitable relief from unfair trade practices to the complainant.
(D) The ITC did not have access to appropriate information concerning the case.
(E) Each of the companies involved in the complaint acted in its own best interest.

為什麼答案不是e 是b阿 謝謝

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 brazen case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The “United States”(必考:結果沒考) company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the “Canadian” companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.

最後一段的例子是承接上段藍色部份而來的,而藍色部分是為了舉例紅色部分而出現的,所以最後一段其實就是紅色部分的例子,也就是答案B囉
E文章中並沒有提到喔

[kaori110]

請問這篇是Problem類型文章嗎

[ling258.liu]

56. It can be inferred from the passage that the minimal basis for a complaint to the International Trade Commission is which of the following?(A) A foreign competitor has received a subsidy from a foreign government. (外國政府補助)
(B) A foreign competitor has substantially increased the volume of products shipped to the United States.(跟題目之傾銷之差在沒有講價格比較低,為核og11TH解答說此種可能性未討論到呢,不是應該像A解答一樣,因為為直說法,而刪掉,解答到底是什意思,是我看錯了嗎