Statement of a United States copper mining company: Import quotas should be imposed on the less expensive copper mined outside the country to maintain the price of copper in this country; otherwise, our companies will not be able to stay in business.

Response of a United States copper wire manufacturer: United States wire and cable manufacturers purchase about 70 percent of the copper mined in the United States. If the copper prices we pay are not at the international level, our sales will drop, and then the demand for United States copper will go down.
If the factual information presented by both companies is accurate, the best assessment of the logical relationship between the two arguments is that the wire manufacturer’s argument

Is self-serving and irrelevant to the proposal of the mining company

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Is circular, presupposing what it seeks to prove about the proposal of the mining company

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Shows that the proposal of the mining company would have a negative effect on the mining company’s own business

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

Fails to give a reason why the proposal of the mining company should not be put into effect to alleviate the concern of the mining company for staying in business

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Establishes that even the mining company’s business will prosper if the mining company’s proposal is rejected

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is C
Shows that the proposal of the mining company would have a negative effect on the mining company’s own business

Option (c) is the correct answer. Check the video for the approach.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Q. In which of the following states of India copper is mined?

Q. Many United States companies have unfortunately, 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 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.
Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate 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 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” 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.
Q. The passage is chiefly concerned with

Many United States companies have, unfortunately, 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 foreign governments’ subsidies. 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.

Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate 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 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” company claiming the injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate. In contrast, the “Canadian” companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.

Q. As per the passage, which of the following is the second-largest producer of rock salt?

Q. In which state of India are the Khetri Copper mines situated?

Q. In which state of India the Balaghat Copper Mines are situated?

Join BYJU'S Learning Program

The correct option is C Shows that the proposal of the mining company would have a negative effect on the mining company’s own business Option (c) is the correct answer. Check the video for the approach.

The correct option is C
Shows that the proposal of the mining company would have a negative effect on the mining company’s own business

Option (c) is the correct answer. Check the video for the approach.