Protectionist trade restrictions harm large segments of society for
[#permalink]
10 Mar 2024, 20:07
Protectionist trade restrictions harm large segments of society for the benefit of a smaller segment. For example, every time the steel industry asks for tariffs on steel imports from foreign countries, someone correctly points out that if that wish were granted, it would harm the United States auto industry and other steel users, not to mention consumers. Protectionist trade restrictions serve particular interests and only rarely also the general welfare. But the U.S. Constitution requires the government to serve the general welfare. It follows that ____________.
The passage is a set of statements of fact about protectionist trade restrictions.
Then, the last sentence is "It follows that __________."
"It follows that" is a way to introduce a conclusion that follows from, in other words, is supported by, facts that precede "It follows that." So, the choice that fills the blank and completes the passage must be a conclusion that logically follows from the statements in the passage.
Which of the following best completes the passage?
This is a Complete the Passage question, and the correct answer will logically complete the passage, in this case by stating a conclusion that follows from the statements in the passage.
A. trade restrictions of any kind are unconstitutional
This choice is so tempting, and it's a good example of why we should go through the other choices even if we think we've found the answer.
After all, this choice could seem to follow from the statements in the passage since the passage says, "Protectionist trade restrictions serve particular interests and only rarely also the general welfare. But the U.S. Constitution requires the government to serve the general welfare."
To avoid choosing this choice, we can do two things. One is see that (C) is pretty similar and thus could be correct as well. The second is to notice that the passage says that "Protectionist trade restrictions serve ... only rarely also the general welfare."
The fact that protectionist trade restrictions "rarely" serve the general welfare means that they sometimes do serve the general welfare. So, in some cases, trade restrictions are constitutional.
Accordingly, it does not follow that, as this choice says, "trade restrictions of any kind are unconstitutional."
Eliminate
B. most U.S. domestic industries are probably helped, not hindered, by foreign competition
To an extent, this choice logically follows from the part of the passage that says, "Protectionist trade restrictions harm large segments of society for the benefit of a smaller segment. For example, every time the steel industry asks for tariffs on steel imports from foreign countries, someone correctly points out that if that wish were granted, it would harm the United States auto industry and other steel users, not to mention consumers."
After all, given what that part of the passage says about trade restricions harming the United States auto industry and other steel users, it's logical that, if there are no trade restrictions and thus there is foreign competition, U.S. domestic industries will probably be helped by that competition.
At the same time, this choice isn't correct because it's not a conclusion that follows from the passage as a whole or from the last sentences of the passage in particular. It follows from only that one earlier part of the passage.
Eliminate.
C. protectionist trade restrictions are usually incompatible with the U.S. Constitution
This choice is correct because it follows from the passage as a whole and from the last sentences in particular.
After all, given what the passage says, "Protectionist trade restrictions serve particular interests and only rarely also the general welfare. But the U.S. Constitution requires the government to serve the general welfare," it does follow that protectionist trade restrictions are usually incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.
After all, the passage doesn't indicate that protectionist trade restrictions" are always incompatible with the U.S. constitution, since it indicates that they do, rarely, serve the general welfare.
So, what the passage says supports the idea that "protectionist trade restrictions are usually (but not always) incompatible with the U.S. Constitution."
Keep.
D. government measures that serve the general interest are generally compatible with the U.S. Constitution
This choice might fill the blank logically if the passage were just the sentence "the U.S. Constitution requires the government to serve the general welfare."
However, that one sentence is not the entire passage. Rather, the passage is mostly discussion of protectionist trade restrictions, and what precedes the sentence with the blank is the following:
Protectionist trade restrictions serve particular interests and only rarely also the general welfare. But the U.S. Constitution requires the government to serve the general welfare.
So, we can see that the conclusion that fills the blank must follow not just from the sentence about the U.S. Constition but also from the sentences that precede that sentence, which are about trade restrictions.
So, this choice doesn't logically fill the blank because it follows from only the last sentence of the passage and not from everything in the passage that precedes the blank.
Eliminate.
E. the general welfare requires protectionist trade restrictions
This choice conficts with what the passage says since the passage says "Protectionist trade restrictions serve ... only rarely also the general welfare." After all, if protectionist trade restrictions only rarely serve the general welfare, then it's not true that "the general welfare requires protectionist trade restrictions."
A choice that conflicts with the passage is not something that "follows" from what the passage says.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: C