The passage is chiefly concerned with:

arguing against the increased internationalization of United States corporations

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

warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently ha unintended consequences

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

demonstrating that foreign-based firms receive more subsidies from their government than United States firms receive from the United State government

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

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

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

recommending a uniform method for handling claims of unfair trade practices

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

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is B
warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently ha unintended consequences

In the first sentence of the passage, the author characterizes the preoccupation of many United States companies with the search for legal protection from import competition as unfortunate. Then, the author explains that the “quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped”. The third paragraph discusses one situation in which United States companies might experience such injury-when import relief laws are used against foreign subsidiaries of United States company and the last paragraph provides a specific example of this situation. Thus, it can be inferred that the author’s primary concern is to warm about possible unintended negative consequences of applying trade laws.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

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. Transnational cooperation among corporations is experiencing a modest renaissance among United States firms, even though projects undertaken by two or more corporations under a collaborative agreement are less profitable than projects undertaken by a single corporation. The advantage of transnational cooperation is that such joint international projects may allow United States firms to win foreign contracts that they would not otherwise be able to win.

Which of the following is information provided by the passage above?

Q. The passage suggests that which of the following is most likely to be true of United States trade laws?

Q. Which of the following statements by a United States corporate officer best fits the situation of United States firms as described in the passage above?

Join BYJU'S Learning Program