|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Updated on: 29 Oct 2020, 09:31
Originally posted by Nevernevergiveup on 21 Oct 2015, 11:04.
Last edited by bM22 on 29 Oct 2020, 09:31, edited 4 times in total.
Last edited by bM22 on 29 Oct 2020, 09:31, edited 4 times in total.
Formatted
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question 1
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
60% (03:24) correct
40%
(03:41) wrong
based on 491
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 2
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
54% (00:39) correct 46%
(00:32) wrong
based on 571
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 3
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
38% (01:10) correct 62%
(01:09) wrong
based on 587
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 4
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
51% (01:10) correct 49%
(01:16) wrong
based on 564
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
An interesting approach to reducing the Unites States’ trade deficit has been suggested: relax export restrictions to China. That this suggestion has come from the President of the People’s Republic of China perhaps warrants some skepticism. That this idea is seconded by U.S. trade groups that represent aerospace, software, and microchip manufacturers, all of whom produce equipment that can be used for military purposes, also gives one pause. Despite some reforms, real and promised, China’s “private” sector is too entangled with a government whose aims and actions are frequently at odds with U.S. policy and ideology.
To expedite “safe” trade with China, the U.S. has recently compiled a list of acceptable Chinese businesses with which our high-tech firms can trade. This replaces a system that required that exporters take the time—sometimes a considerable amount—to get licenses for the items they wished to export. Supposedly, the new system has stringent criteria that ensure that the Chinese firms will only use the imported goods for non-military purposes. Many of these products are, however, dual-purpose; they have military as well as commercial applications. Despite assurances that ground checks will prevent imported goods from being diverted for military purposes, China is simply too big, and the links between its companies and its government agencies too byzantine, for these assurances to be meaningful.
Another area in which trade with China needs to be handled carefully is that of intellectual property. Here, U.S. companies are largely on their own; our government can establish guidelines and issue warnings, but it cannot take a direct part in legal actions pursued by an American firm that believes its patents, trademarks, or copyrights have been violated. This is no small problem. About 20% of all consumer products in the Chinese market are counterfeit. China’s government has taken some steps to address this problem, but these steps have not yet resulted in enough punishment for those who pirate intellectual property to serve as much of a deterrent to others. Furthermore, what the central government promises is one thing; what provincial governments do is another. Corruption, protectionism, and apathy contribute to a climate in which pirating is considered business as usual by local officials located at great distances from the central government.
To expedite “safe” trade with China, the U.S. has recently compiled a list of acceptable Chinese businesses with which our high-tech firms can trade. This replaces a system that required that exporters take the time—sometimes a considerable amount—to get licenses for the items they wished to export. Supposedly, the new system has stringent criteria that ensure that the Chinese firms will only use the imported goods for non-military purposes. Many of these products are, however, dual-purpose; they have military as well as commercial applications. Despite assurances that ground checks will prevent imported goods from being diverted for military purposes, China is simply too big, and the links between its companies and its government agencies too byzantine, for these assurances to be meaningful.
Another area in which trade with China needs to be handled carefully is that of intellectual property. Here, U.S. companies are largely on their own; our government can establish guidelines and issue warnings, but it cannot take a direct part in legal actions pursued by an American firm that believes its patents, trademarks, or copyrights have been violated. This is no small problem. About 20% of all consumer products in the Chinese market are counterfeit. China’s government has taken some steps to address this problem, but these steps have not yet resulted in enough punishment for those who pirate intellectual property to serve as much of a deterrent to others. Furthermore, what the central government promises is one thing; what provincial governments do is another. Corruption, protectionism, and apathy contribute to a climate in which pirating is considered business as usual by local officials located at great distances from the central government.
OA B
(A) Several local police chiefs in remote provinces have been demoted for taking bribes to not enforce pirating laws.
(B) New practices in China have led to greater transparency of the connections between companies and government agencies.
(C) Several U.S. manufacturing firms have expressed reservations regarding the list of acceptable exports.
(D) The new policy makes clear that any business that exports items that are not on the list of acceptable exports will be subject to large fines, and that the company’s chief officers will likely face jail sentences.
(E) The list of acceptable exports makes clear which ones have military applications.
Q2. The attitude of the author of the passage toward trade with China is best described as one of _______.
A) skeptical advocacy
B) disinterested description
C) considered wariness
D) amused fascination
E) troubled confusion
A) skeptical advocacy
B) disinterested description
C) considered wariness
D) amused fascination
E) troubled confusion
Q3. According to the author, the new system of exporting high-tech goods to China _______.
A) is an imperfect improvement over the old system
B) can take too much time to be truly effective
C) will almost certainly be adversely affected by local corruption
D) aims to speed up the process of receiving approval for the exportation of some goods
E) will only apply to items that can be used for military purposes
A) is an imperfect improvement over the old system
B) can take too much time to be truly effective
C) will almost certainly be adversely affected by local corruption
D) aims to speed up the process of receiving approval for the exportation of some goods
E) will only apply to items that can be used for military purposes
Q4. One issue that affects both high-tech exports and intellectual property rights is ______________.
A) the difficulty of knowing what is truly going on in all parts of the country
B) that some products intended for commercial use can have military applications
C) the lack of interest in monitoring illegal activity of this sort on the part of provincial governments
D) the willingness of some American firms to do business with China without due consideration of the political repercussions
E) too many of China's products infringe on existing patents, trademarks, and copyrights
A) the difficulty of knowing what is truly going on in all parts of the country
B) that some products intended for commercial use can have military applications
C) the lack of interest in monitoring illegal activity of this sort on the part of provincial governments
D) the willingness of some American firms to do business with China without due consideration of the political repercussions
E) too many of China's products infringe on existing patents, trademarks, and copyrights
14 Oct 2016, 20:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
Here’s what I think:
New system: Compiling a list of acceptable Chinese Businesses.
Effectiveness of this new system: To expedite “safe” trade.
Assumption regarding effectiveness of this new system: If they follow this “New System”, US govt will be able to expedite safe trade.
Weakening the assumption: If the new practices in China lead to greater transparency, then there is no point in implementing this new system.
See lines “China’s “private” sector is too entangled with a government whose aims and actions are frequently at odds with U.S. policy and ideology”.
If there is transparency, this system need not be implemented, and hence won’t be effective(obviously).
New system: Compiling a list of acceptable Chinese Businesses.
Effectiveness of this new system: To expedite “safe” trade.
Assumption regarding effectiveness of this new system: If they follow this “New System”, US govt will be able to expedite safe trade.
Weakening the assumption: If the new practices in China lead to greater transparency, then there is no point in implementing this new system.
See lines “China’s “private” sector is too entangled with a government whose aims and actions are frequently at odds with U.S. policy and ideology”.
If there is transparency, this system need not be implemented, and hence won’t be effective(obviously).
24 Dec 2016, 01:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
My take:
Lets focus on second para for this.
Now break down the question:
What are author's assumptions regarding effectiveness?
One assumption: The new system will not be effective as the links between companies and government are byzantine.
What weakens this assumption?
If there is transparency between companies and government, then it wouldnt be as byzantine as it seems and tracking/tracing of US exports will be possible. Thus, new system will be effective.
Is my understanding correct?
Lets focus on second para for this.
Now break down the question:
What are author's assumptions regarding effectiveness?
One assumption: The new system will not be effective as the links between companies and government are byzantine.
What weakens this assumption?
If there is transparency between companies and government, then it wouldnt be as byzantine as it seems and tracking/tracing of US exports will be possible. Thus, new system will be effective.
Is my understanding correct?
