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 steel
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?
A. Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers' revenue comes from exports.
B. The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify
any penalties for such violations.
C. 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.
D. Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign
producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.
E. Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of
the countries that export steel to Krenland.
Ans: C
ABE: irrelevant
why choice C is better than choice D?
Here is my thought:
Choice D shows that a strong factor (significant decline in the cost of shipping steels from FP to K) other than that
(subsidy from government) in text can also result in low price of imports. Focusing on "what K government can do for steel industry" cannot really solve the problem because there is not just ONE factor affecting the low price of imports.
Coice C.... I deleted it when first reading. ><
I considered it irrelevant.
