Text 2
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 “l(fā)ess 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 law 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 large foreign company with the 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 company, while the “Canadian” companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt. (340 words)
Notes: subsidy n. 補(bǔ)助，津貼。dump vt. 傾銷。brazen a. 棘手的；不知羞恥的。duty 關(guān)稅。allegations 指控。bizarre 荒誕的，稀奇古怪的。subsidiary子公司。
1. The first paragraph suggests that the minimal basis for a complaint to the International Trade Commission is that ______.
A. the company requesting import relief has been injured by the sale of imports in the United States
B. a foreign competitor has received a subsidy from a foreign government
C. a foreign competitor has substantially increased the volume of products shipped to the United States
D. a foreign competitor is selling products in the United States at less than fair market value
2. Companies have the general impression that International Trade Commission import relief practices have _______.
A. caused unpredictable fluctuations in volumes of imports and exports
B. achieved their desired effect only under unusual circumstances
C. actually helped companies that have requested import relief
D. had less impact on international companies than the business community expected
3. The text warns of the danger that companies _______.
A. in the U. S. may receive no protection from imports unless they actively seek it from import competition
B. that seek legal protection from import competition may incur legal costs that far exceed any possible gain
C. that are not U.S.-owned may seek legal protection from import competition under U.S. import relief laws
D. in the United States that import raw materials may have to pay duties on those materials
4. What function does the last paragraph perform in the text?
A. It summarizes the discussion thus far and suggests additional areas for 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 text were not obtained.
D. It cites a specific case that illustrates a problem presented more generally in the previous paragraph.
5. The text is chiefly concerned with ________.
A. arguing against the increased internationalization of the United States corporations
B. warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently had unintended consequences
C. advocating the use of trade restrictions for “dumped” products but not for other imports
D. recommending a uniform method for handling claims of unfair trade practices
