Despite the early protectionist moves, such as introducing steel tarif

Question

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.    1 
 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.

2 
 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.

3 
 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.

4 
 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.

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

biancanancy · Answer

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,

Sajjad1994 · Answer

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

thakurarun85 · Answer

Sajjad1994

please provide solution to question 4.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

4. Achieving an agreement at the latest round of trade talks seems doubtful because

Explanation

Paragraphs 1 and 3  illustrate that both some EU countries and the G20 group of developing nations are unsure of the costs and gains resulting from a new trade agreement. Note that  (C)  is just the opposite of what is contained in the passage, at the end of the first paragraph.

Answer: D

Jarvis07 · Answer

I love when I get an opportunity to do maths in Verbal questions. So here we go again:

This question comes from following part of the passage:
  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.

If we let x be the amount that goes to developed countries, then poor countries would receive 4x/3 (since they would receive one-third more than developed countries).

So the total gain from removing agricultural distortions would be x + 4x/3 = 7x/3. We know that this total gain is estimated to be more than $300 billion per year. Therefore, we can set up the equation:

7x/3 = $300 billion

Solving for x, we get:

x = ($300 billion x 3)/7 = $128.6 billion or Approximately $100 billion
  Hence C.

Jarvis07 · Answer

The passage states that India is " refusing to negotiate without deeper concessions on agriculture " because 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. This implies that India aims to reduce barriers to the sale of its farm produce, as stated in answer choice (B).

A) Penetrate Chinese consumer markets: The passage does not mention anything about the Indian government trying to enter the Chinese consumer markets.

C) Impose more restrictive trade policies: The passage does not suggest that the Indian government aims to implement more restrictive trade policies.

D) Improve its bargaining position: Although the Indian government is looking for deeper concessions on agriculture, there is no direct indication that this is being done to improve its bargaining position.

E) Protect its farmers against foreign competition: This is somewhat related to the correct answer of reducing barriers to the sale of farm produce, but it is not explicitly stated in the passage that the Indian government is looking to protect their farmers.

Jarvis07 · Answer

The correct answer is (C) becoming more protectionist.

The passage mentions that the American politicians are " once again turning protectionist, " and that the 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.

Jarvis07 · Answer

Option (D) is the correct answer.

The passage states that both the EU and G20 groups are unsure of the gains that might accrue from an agreement, which suggests that they may not be fully committed to reaching an agreement. 
Option (A) is incorrect because while the EU trade commissioner has indeed been trying to persuade India and China to liberalize exports of farm produce, this is not the main reason why achieving an agreement seems doubtful. 
Option (B) is incorrect because America's fast-track negotiating authority expiring soon is not mentioned as a reason why achieving an agreement seems doubtful. 
Option (C) is incorrect because while it is true that poorer countries have demanded that developed countries open their markets to manufactured goods before they lower agricultural barriers, this is not mentioned as the reason for the doubtfulness of achieving an agreement. 
Option (E) is incorrect because there is no mention of Britain and France being against a new agreement in the passage.

Susarla96 · Answer

Hey, thanks for the explanation. Even though I thought that C is the right answer, I was unsure to select it because in the passage it says "American Politicians" and not "Legislature". So please tell me if "politicians" in general means "legislature"? Or did I miss something? TIA

adityakaregamba · Answer

I'm still having trouble understanding how the answer to Q2 can be "reduce barriers to the sale of its farm produce." If India were to reduce barriers, that would mean other countries could export their products to India at a very competitive price. This could directly impact Indian markets, and ultimately lead to an increase in unemployment rates.

Can someone help me understand where I am going wrong ?

Can someone help me understand where I am going wrong ?

manavsaraf001 · Answer

As per your calculation , x is 128 billion . But the question is asking to find "gains to poor countries " , that should be 4x/3 .  Which comes out approx 42 billion .

Please explain the solution again

cosmic_matters1 · Answer

The Vice President of the United States serves as President of the Senate and may cast the decisive vote in the event of a tie in the Senate.(Copied from the legislative branch of the US website). So as per my knowledge, The legislature comprises of politicians, that is why if majority of the politicians are protectionist,then the whole legislature is taken in to account.

Despite the early protectionist moves, such as introducing steel tarif

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Despite the early protectionist moves, such as introducing steel tarif

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards