Seems fairly straightforward. We have an industry that doesn't like imports. The government will do nothing to harm the industry. Therefore there will be no imports. 3 variables that work like dominoes.
Allowing more steel imports would depress domestic steel prices and harm domestic steel manufacturers. Since the present government will not do anything that would harm the domestic steel industry, it will not lift restrictions on steel imports.
The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?
(A) Building construction increases only when people are confident that the economy is doing well. Therefore, since people are now confident in the economy we can expect building construction to increase.
This one ain't bad, but I daresay because it is 'positive' as in A causes B which causes C it is not in tune with the negative version that (E) provides that is more similar to the passage.
(B) Since workers are already guaranteed the right to a safe and healthful workplace by law, there is no need for the government to establish further costly health regulations for people who work all day at computer terminals.
Only two variables here. Since A, we do not need B. Nope.
(C) In countries that have deregulated their airline industry, many airlines have gone bankrupt. Since many companies in other transportation industries are in weaker economic condition than were those airlines, deregulating other transportation industries will probably result in bankruptcies as well.
This is different. This is situation A being compared with what would most likely occur in Situation B (were deregulation in those transportation industries) to happen)
(D) The chief executive officer of Silicon, Inc., will probably not accept stock in the company as a bonus next year, since next year’s tax laws will require companies to pay a new tax on stock given to executives.
A will not happen, since B. Nope. Not similar to the beginning pattern. We need 3 variables, I daresay
(E) The installation of bright floodlights on campus would render the astronomy department’s telescope useless. The astronomy department will not support any proposal that would render its telescope useless; it will therefore not support proposals to install bright floodlights on campus.
Bright lights make telescope useless -- Department will not allow telescope to be useless - Therefore no bright lights - We have the three linked together in a domino effect.
Some Kudos would be nice