Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the search for

Hey Anisha1637, I'm citing the piece of the passage from where the correct option can be inferred. All the other options are simply not stated anywhere in the passage. The answer lies in the 2nd paragraph -

"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."

Happy to discuss any further questions on this!

Thankyou for clearing the doubt! Got it

GMATNinja can you please help here?

Question 1

This question is a prime example of why using the process of elimination is the most accurate way to answer verbal questions. Do we love the exact language in (B)? Maybe not -- you're right that the passage deals with a subset of trade laws, not every single trade law out there.

But can we eliminate (B) based on that quibble? I don't think so. Remember that the answer choice is trying to capture the "chief concern" of an entire passage in a single sentence. So, the words in the answer choice are probably not going to exactly match the words in the passage. At the end of the day, the author wrote the passage to warn us about unintended consequences of a particular set of trade laws. (B) expresses this intention clearly.

Looking through the rest of the answer choices, none of them come close to being correct. So our only option is to choose (B), even if it's not worded exactly as we would like it to be.

I hope that helps!

Its about what we are told and not. B is a brilliant trap. The reader takes for granted that the ITC grants the subsidies, but that is not explicitly stated. Maybe ITC only investigates the allegations and some other authority finally grants the subsidy?

Posted from my mobile device

Sajjad1994

Are we sure this is 700+? This feels more 600-700

The following should be the difficulty level of each question.

Question #1: 500
Question #2: 700
Question #3: 500
Question #4: 700
Question #5: 600
Question #6: 700
Question #7: 700
Question #8: 600

Thank you

Hey GMATNinja. Can you please help me out with answer 8 ? I am confused between A and B. Thanks a ton in advance !

Question 8

Here's question 8:

The author directly talks about the role of the ITC twice in the passage:

• In the first paragraph, we learn that the ITC "has received[...] complaints" regarding import protection.
• In the fourth paragraph, the ITC "investigated allegations" regarding the Canadian and US salt industry.

So, which answer choice is supported by the info above?

This one looks good! The author directly tells us in the fourth paragraph that the ITC investigated certain allegations. Keep (A).


Subsidies are mentioned in the passage, but the author never says that the ITC itself grants subsidies. In the first and third paragraphs, the subsidies are granted by foreign governments -- so those are definitely not granted by the ITC. And while the ITC seems to be involved in offering some kind of "relief" to certain companies, there's no indication that this relief comes in the form of a subsidy.

There's no evidence in the passage that the ITC grants subsidies, so get rid of (B).

(A) is the correct answer to question 8.

I hope that helps!

I got it. Thanks a lot !!!

Here you go

To answer this question, consider the passage as a whole. In the first sentence, the author sets off unfortunately in commas, drawing attention to the author’s attitude about companies that seek legal protection from imports. In the next paragraph, the author says, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. The third paragraph creates a hypothetical situation to show how import relief might hurt American companies, and the last paragraph shows the actual, unintended, and unfortunate consequences of import relief laws.

(A) Internationalization is accepted as a given (lines 16–18); no argument is made against it.

(B) Correct. The author warns that American companies seeking relief from imports may suffer unexpected adverse consequences when the laws are applied to them.

(C) The author does not make this comparison.

(D) The author does not make this recommendation.

(E) The author makes no recommendation but simply describes actual and possible consequences.

The correct answer is B.

Really ??? Not given is what your explanation is? So helpful

GMATNinja In Q8, can you please help me understand how to eliminate option E

In Q6, how to eliminate option E? Since it is an inference question, I thought that since they are filing company to protect themselves, both are looking after their own interest (getting some outside information since in inference question, we can do so)

Similarly, in Q8, how to eliminate option E

Apologies for weird fantasy with option E

AndrewN GMATNinja KarishmaB Hi, can you please clear my following doubt regarding Q1.

1. The passage is chiefly concerned with
(B) warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences

I understand from the passage that the main point conveyed by author is to highlight the negative unintended implications of the "import relief" laws on United States companies. However, option B says that application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences. How can we justify "frequently" here? Also the passage talks about a particular import law while this option says laws in general. Doesn't this option seems to be a stretch, generalizing a specific instance in the history. It just happened once in the history. Although I understand that other options are incorrect, I wish to understand this correct answer.

Question 6

In this passage, the author criticizes import relief laws. To support this criticism, the author points out that foreign companies can use import relief laws "against the very companies the laws were designed to protect." The complaint in the last paragraph is used as an example to support this claim. In other words, the "Dutch conglomerate" is a foreign company that uses import relief laws against the subsidiary of an American company, whom the import relief laws were designed to protect.

Based on on this, we know the author thinks the complaint in the last paragraph violates the "the intent of import relief laws," as (B) says. So (B) is correct.

But what about (E)?


Can we infer that the author thinks both companies are acting in their own best interest? In fact, the author doesn't give us his/her opinion about what is in the best interest of either of these companies. All we know is that the complaint is an example of import relief laws damaging a United States company.

Additionally, in the second paragraph, the author argues that "the quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped." To support this point, the author points out that due to the complexity of international corporate relationships, "it is unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company." In other words, import relief may help some members of a parent company, and hurt others. And if that's the case, even if import relief helps one part of a company, it may hurt another. So we have reason to doubt that seeking import relief is always in a large company's best interests (since it might help certain parts and hurt others).

For both of those reasons, we can eliminate (E).

Question 8

The passage tells us that the International Trade Commission (ITC) receives complaints from companies who are seeking "legal protection from import competition." In other words, the companies are trying to sell products in the United States (i.e. domestically), and are concerned that competition from foreign imports will hurt them. So these companies are not trying to "complete globally," as (E) suggests, but merely to sell their products in their own, domestic market.

Also, the passage tells us that the ITC "investigates allegations," presumably to determine whether the allegations are correct. But we are never told that the ITC's goal is to "assist corporations in the United States..."

For both of those reasons, we can eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!

How can you infer that general impression is representative of the companies' beliefs and not the general public?