|
|
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.
02 Mar 2022, 21:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question 1
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
53% (02:50) correct
47%
(02:40) wrong
based on 175
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 2
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
10% (01:04) correct 90%
(00:59) wrong
based on 188
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 3
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
49% (01:03) correct 51%
(01:14) wrong
based on 179
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 4
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
41% (01:13) correct 59%
(01:18) wrong
based on 174
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Despite the early protectionist moves, such as introducing steel tariffs, the Bush administration has pushed hard for trade liberalization in the past few years. In contrast, the European Union has appeared divided and ineffective. Its trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, has so far failed to persuade skeptical member states that the benefits of new export markets will outweigh the costs of allowing greater competition at home, especially in agriculture. Though some members, notably Britain and other north Europeans, favor a more liberal approach, it has proved all but impossible to get agreement from France and other more protected economies with vociferous farmers. Europe’s general position has been to refuse any more lowering of agricultural barriers until poorer countries agree to liberalize trade in goods and services.
Nor is the G20 group of developing nations giving much impetus to the talks. Led by India and Brazil, the G20 is refusing to negotiate without deeper concessions on agriculture. India, with its large population, may turn out to be a big problem. Its government worries that competition from Chinese factories and American farms represents too great a threat, while gaining more access to world markets is only of limited attraction.
Other poor countries are also unsure what they would gain. There is general talk of hopeful prospects for poor farmers gaining greater access to rich-world markets. But the benefits will not flow evenly from rich to poor. The World Bank estimates that removing current agricultural distortions would produce a general benefit of more than $300 billion a year. Relative to national income, poor countries would enjoy a third more of this benefit than rich, industrialized ones. However, nearly half of that benefit would come from reforms by the developing countries themselves, something governments might do anyway were it not for the serious problem of the political pain the reforms are bound to cause.
The impasse first led to the deadline for an agreement, which was originally supposed to be settled at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting in December 2005, to slip to the end of April 2006. Now, in theory, this is to be resolved by the middle of summer 2006. Missed deadlines may be nothing new for the World Trade Organization (WTO), but these deadlines matter. There is no further room to slide from them. The American government’s fast-track negotiating authority, which forces Congress to accept or reject a trade bill without introducing amendments, is thought to be essential if America is to take part in talks. The authority expires in 2007 and few expect it to be renewed. Too many American politicians are once again turning protectionist. Congress only barely passed the Bush administration’s Central America Free Trade Agreement, even though its impact on the American economy will be tiny compared to the ambitions for Doha. And as it will take roughly a year to work out the finer details of any world trade agreement, the outstanding issues must be resolved early enough so the Bush administration to get a deal through Congress.
Nor is the G20 group of developing nations giving much impetus to the talks. Led by India and Brazil, the G20 is refusing to negotiate without deeper concessions on agriculture. India, with its large population, may turn out to be a big problem. Its government worries that competition from Chinese factories and American farms represents too great a threat, while gaining more access to world markets is only of limited attraction.
Other poor countries are also unsure what they would gain. There is general talk of hopeful prospects for poor farmers gaining greater access to rich-world markets. But the benefits will not flow evenly from rich to poor. The World Bank estimates that removing current agricultural distortions would produce a general benefit of more than $300 billion a year. Relative to national income, poor countries would enjoy a third more of this benefit than rich, industrialized ones. However, nearly half of that benefit would come from reforms by the developing countries themselves, something governments might do anyway were it not for the serious problem of the political pain the reforms are bound to cause.
The impasse first led to the deadline for an agreement, which was originally supposed to be settled at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting in December 2005, to slip to the end of April 2006. Now, in theory, this is to be resolved by the middle of summer 2006. Missed deadlines may be nothing new for the World Trade Organization (WTO), but these deadlines matter. There is no further room to slide from them. The American government’s fast-track negotiating authority, which forces Congress to accept or reject a trade bill without introducing amendments, is thought to be essential if America is to take part in talks. The authority expires in 2007 and few expect it to be renewed. Too many American politicians are once again turning protectionist. Congress only barely passed the Bush administration’s Central America Free Trade Agreement, even though its impact on the American economy will be tiny compared to the ambitions for Doha. And as it will take roughly a year to work out the finer details of any world trade agreement, the outstanding issues must be resolved early enough so the Bush administration to get a deal through Congress.
1. It can be inferred that a removal of agricultural distortions would provide gains to poor countries of approximately
(A) $300 million per year.
(B) $500 million per year.
(C) $100 billion per year.
(D) $300 billion per year.
(E) $500 billion per year.
(A) $300 million per year.
(B) $500 million per year.
(C) $100 billion per year.
(D) $300 billion per year.
(E) $500 billion per year.
2. The Indian government aims to
(A) penetrate Chinese consumer markets.
(B) reduce barriers to the sale of its farm produce.
(C) impose more restrictive trade policies.
(D) improve its bargaining position.
(E) protect its farmers against foreign competition.
(A) penetrate Chinese consumer markets.
(B) reduce barriers to the sale of its farm produce.
(C) impose more restrictive trade policies.
(D) improve its bargaining position.
(E) protect its farmers against foreign competition.
3. According to the passage, the American legislature is
(A) liberalizing its policy toward foreign trade.
(B) sensitive to the demands of third-world countries.
(C) becoming more protectionist.
(D) pushing hard for trade liberalization.
(E) opposing any amendment to existing world trade agreements.
(A) liberalizing its policy toward foreign trade.
(B) sensitive to the demands of third-world countries.
(C) becoming more protectionist.
(D) pushing hard for trade liberalization.
(E) opposing any amendment to existing world trade agreements.
4. Achieving an agreement at the latest round of trade talks seems doubtful because
(A) the EU trade commissioner has failed to persuade India and China to liberalize exports of farm produce.
(B) America’s fast-track negotiating authority is soon to expire.
(C) poorer countries refuse to lower agricultural barriers until developed countries open their markets to manufactured goods.
(D) both the EU and G20 groups are unsure of the gains that might accrue from an agreement.
(E) Britain and France are steadfastly against a new agreement.
(A) the EU trade commissioner has failed to persuade India and China to liberalize exports of farm produce.
(B) America’s fast-track negotiating authority is soon to expire.
(C) poorer countries refuse to lower agricultural barriers until developed countries open their markets to manufactured goods.
(D) both the EU and G20 groups are unsure of the gains that might accrue from an agreement.
(E) Britain and France are steadfastly against a new agreement.
RC Butler 2022 - Practice Two RC Passages Everyday.
Passage # 91 Date: 03-Mar-2022
This question is a part of RC Butler 2022. Click here for Details
Passage # 91 Date: 03-Mar-2022
This question is a part of RC Butler 2022. Click here for Details
05 Mar 2022, 09:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
I don't understand the aim of Indian government as per Q 2. None of the options are explicitly stated but all the options seem correct? I would appreciate if someone provides an explanation. Thanks in advance,
05 Mar 2022, 14:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Explanation
2. The Indian government aims to
Explanation
The Indian government, like many other “poorer” countries, wants developed countries to reduce barriers to imports of farm produce. See paragraph 2.
Answer: B
Explanation
The Indian government, like many other “poorer” countries, wants developed countries to reduce barriers to imports of farm produce. See paragraph 2.
Answer: B
