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

They will enable manufacturers in the United States to compete more profitably outside the United States.

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

They will affect United States trade with Canada more negatively than trade with other nations.

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

Those that help one unit within a parent company will not necessarily help other units in the company.

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

Those that are applied to international companies will accomplish their intended result.

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

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is C Those that help one unit within a parent company will not necessarily help other units in the company.
The best answer is C. The passage suggests that trade laws can be used against the US companies - this isn't what is intended.
Choice A - mentions nothing about US companies competing outside their own country. Choice B - When an answer choice makes a comparison, aspects of all sides should be known, which is not the case here. Choice D - This goes directly against the passage statements: because now it is difficult to tell who is the parent company.

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

Which of the following is most likely to be true of United States trade laws, as suggested in the passage?

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?

Depositary receipts that are traded in an international market other than the United States are referred to as

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

Join BYJU'S Learning Program