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

Question

Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980 the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies “dumped” their products in the United States at “less than fair value.” Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.

Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. 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.

Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect. Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the United States company’s products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.

Perhaps the most brazen case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The “United States” company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the “Canadian” companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.   1 
  Main idea

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 . 
 1. The passage is chiefly concerned with

(A) arguing against the increased internationalization of United States corporations
(B) warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences
(C) demonstrating that foreign-based firms receive more subsidies from their governments than United States firms receive from the United States government
(D) advocating the use of trade restrictions for “dumped” products but not for other imports
(E) recommending a uniform method for handling claims of unfair trade practices

2 
 2. It can be inferred from the passage that the minimal basis for a complaint to the International Trade Commission is which of the following?

(A) A foreign competitor has received a subsidy from a foreign government.
(B) A foreign competitor has substantially increased the volume of products shipped to the United States.
(C) A foreign competitor is selling products in the United States at less than fair market value.
(D) The company requesting import relief has been injured by the sale of imports in the United States.
(E) The company requesting import relief has been barred from exporting products to the country of its foreign competitor.

3 
 3. The last paragraph performs which of the following functions in the passage?

(A) It summarizes the discussion thus far and suggests additional areas of research.
(B) It presents a recommendation based on the evidence presented earlier.
(C) It discusses an exceptional case in which the results expected by the author of the passage were not obtained.
(D) It introduces an additional area of concern not mentioned earlier.
(E) It cites a specific case that illustrates a problem presented more generally in the previous paragraph.

4 
 4. The passage warns of which of the following dangers?

(A) Companies in the United States may receive no protection from imports unless they actively seek protection from import competition.
(B) Companies that seek legal protection from import competition may incur legal costs that far exceed any possible gain.
(C) Companies that are United States-owned but operate internationally may not be eligible for protection from import competition under the laws of the countries in which their plants operate.
(D) Companies that are not United States-owned may seek legal protection from import competition under United States import relief laws.
(E) Companies in the United States that import raw materials may have to pay duties on those materials.

5 
 5. The passage suggests that which of the following is most likely to be true of United States trade laws?

(A) They will eliminate the practice of “dumping” products in the United States.
(B) They will enable manufacturers in the United States to compete more profitably outside the United States.
(C) They will affect United States trade with Canada more negatively than trade with other nations.
(D) Those that help one unit within a parent company will not necessarily help other units in the company.
(E) Those that are applied to international companies will accomplish their intended result.

6 
 6. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which of the following about the complaint mentioned in the last paragraph?

(A) The ITC acted unfairly toward the complainant in its investigation.
(B) The complaint violated the intent of import relief laws.
(C) The response of the ITC to the complaint provided suitable relief from unfair trade practices to the complainant.
(D) The ITC did not have access to appropriate information concerning the case.
(E) Each of the companies involved in the complaint acted in its own best interest.

7 
 7. According to the passage, companies have the general impression that International Trade Commission import relief practices have

(A) caused unpredictable fluctuations in volumes of imports and exports
(B) achieved their desired effect only under unusual circumstances
(C) actually helped companies that have requested import relief
(D) been opposed by the business community
(E) had less impact on international companies than the business community expected

8 
 8. According to the passage, the International Trade Commission is involved in which of the following?

(A) Investigating allegations of unfair import competition
(B) Granting subsidies to companies in the United States that have been injured by import competition
(C) Recommending legislation to ensure fair
(D) Identifying international corporations that wish to build plants in the United States
(E) Assisting corporations in the United States that wish to compete globally

Sujeet07 · Accepted Answer

Reading Strategy ....... Many United States companies have, unfortunately , made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work . Since 1980 the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies “dumped” their products in the United States at “less than fair value.” Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief. Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped . 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. Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect . Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States . If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad— the United States company’s products will be uncompetitive in the United States , since they would be subject to duties. Perhaps the most brazen case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads . The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The “United States” company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the “Canadian” companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt. Red - Read it and understand it. Main Idea of each paragraph. Green - Skip or skim , bold part - just focus on this part as what is happening in Green part. Logical flow - very very important Para -1 - Context - Many US companies search for protection from import competition and seek relief . ITC received many complain. From this paragraph you can inferred that Author is not happy with this steps by US. How i can inferred this - "unfortunate" word in first line. Para -2 - Author explained "this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped" Para -3 - Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect. Para -4 - E.g. of such scenario - he most brazen case occurred when the ITC investigated. Author attitude -

not happy. 1. The passage is chiefly concerned with General question , must be inline with author attitude and logical flow (A) arguing against the increased internationalization of United States corporations - Narrow , mentioned in 3rd paragraph (B) warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences - Correct , inline with author attitude and logical flow. (C) demonstrating that foreign-based firms receive more subsidies from their governments than United States firms receive from the United States government - OOS (D) advocating the use of trade restrictions for “dumped” products but not for other imports - No (E) recommending a uniform method for handling claims of unfair trade practices - OOS 2. It can be inferred from the passage that the minimal basis for a complaint to the International Trade Commission is which of the following? First understand the question , it is inferred question then option "must be true" and second it is asking for minimal base i.e. least base (A) A foreign competitor has received a subsidy from a foreign government. Given in 1st para (B) A foreign competitor has substantially increased the volume of products shipped to the United States. - Given in first para (C) A foreign competitor is selling products in the United States at less than fair market value. - Given in 1st para (D) The company requesting import relief has been injured by the sale of imports in the United States. (last line of 1st para) (E) The company requesting import relief has been barred from exporting products to the country of its foreign competitor. - OOS as passage not discussed about anythings related to export. The last paragraph perform s which of the following f unctions in the passage ? as in the logical flow - last paragraph is e.g. (A) It summarizes the discussion thus far and suggests additional areas of research. - No (B) It presents a recommendation based on the evidence presented earlier. - No (C) It discusses an exceptional case in which the results expected by the author of the passage were not obtained. -NO (D) It introduces an additional area of concern not mentioned earlier. -NO (E) It cites a specific case that illustrates a problem presented more generally in the previous paragraph.- Correct The passage warns of which of the following dangers? Danger word mention in the 3rd paragraph, lets read it first. (A) Companies in the United States may receive no protection from imports unless they actively seek protection from import competition . - 2nd part is wrong as it not mentioned anywhere (B) Companies that seek legal protection from import competition may incur legal costs that far exceed any possible gain . - No (C) Companies that are United States-owned but operate internationally may not be eligible for protection from import competition under the laws of the countries in which their plants operate . No (D) Companies that are not United States-owned may seek legal protection from import competition under United States import relief laws. Yes, same mentioned in 3rd para (E) Companies in the United States that import raw materials may have to pay duties on those materials . - No The passage suggests that which of the following is most likely to be true of United States trade laws? Read 2nd and 3rd para (A) They will eliminate the practice of “dumping” products in the United States. - No (B) They will enable manufacturers in the United States to compete more profitably outside the United States. (C) They will affect United States trade with Canada more negatively than trade with other nations. Mention in last para as a e.g. (D) Those that help one unit within a parent company will not necessarily help other units in the company. yes, in 2nd para (E) Those that are applied to international companies will accomplish their intended result. - No

GMATNinja · Answer

The first paragraph describes two types of unfair practices addressed by the ITC: 1) those involving damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments and 2) foreign companies dumping products in the United States at “less than fair value.” At the end of the paragraph, the author states: "Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is  sufficient grounds  (i.e. a sufficient basis) to seek relief."

Thus, even if unfair practices (such as the two described earlier in the first paragraph) are not taking place, a company can seek relief as long as it can claim that its "industry has been injured by imports." This minimal basis for a complaint to the ITC is accurately described in choice (D).

As for choice (E), the passage does not describe ITC involvement in cases when companies are barred from exporting products to the country of its foreign competitors. Even if those companies could seek relief from the ITC is such cases, the passage does not suggest that this is the "minimal basis" for making a complaint to the ITC.

Refer to the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped." This suggests that the "general impression" is that the quest for import relief has HELPED more companies than it has hurt. The passage does not talk about the business community's expectations specific to the impact on international companies, so choice (E) can be eliminated.

Choice (C) most closely matches the general impression suggested by the first sentence of the second paragraph.

I hope this helps!

Choice (C) most closely matches the general impression suggested by the first sentence of the second paragraph.

I hope this helps!

jerrykid · Answer

For question 1:

1. The passage is chiefly concerned with
(A) arguing against the increased internationalization of United States corporations
(B) warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences
(C) demonstrating that foreign-based firms receive more subsidies from their governments than United States firms receive from the United States government
(D) advocating the use of trade restrictions for “dumped” products but not for other imports
(E) recommending a uniform method for handling claims of unfair trade practices

B is the most correct one. But I still think that it is not quite right because it violates the "too narrow/ too broad scope" criteria.

The passage specifically deals with "import reliefs policies" while for choice B, it addresses "laws affecting trade", which is much more general than "import reliefs policies".

Can anybody explain?

BillyZ · Answer

GMATNinja , Could you help with Question 6?
 
It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which of the following about the complaint mentioned in the last paragraph?

(A) The ITC acted unfairly toward the complainant in its investigation.
(B) The complaint violated the intent of import relief laws.
(C) The response of the ITC to the complaint provided suitable relief from unfair trade practices to the complainant.
(D) The ITC did not have access to appropriate information concerning the case.
(E) Each of the companies involved in the complaint acted in its own best interest.

GMATNinja · Answer

This portion suggests that author believes that the import relief laws were designed to protect American companies from foreign competition. In this particular example (the complaint mentioned in the last paragraph), a  Dutch  company used the laws to file a complaint  against  an American company. Instead of the laws being used to protect American companies, in this example the laws were used  against  an American company.

Now, let's take a look at the answer choices:

All we know is that the ITC  investigated  these allegations. We do not know how the ITC responded to the complaints, so we do not know whether the ITC acted unfairly. (A) can be eliminated.

The author believes that the import relief laws were designed to protect American companies, but in this example the laws were used against an American company. Thus, we can infer that the author would believe that the complaint violated the intent of the import laws. Choice (B) looks good.

Again, we do not know how the ITC responded to the complaint, so we cannot infer what the author might think about the response. Eliminate (C).

We are not told anything about the ITC's access to appropriate information concerning the case, so we cannot infer that the author would believe this. Eliminate (D).

The passage does not mention anything about the motivation of the companies, so we cannot infer what the author thinks about the motivations of the companies. We can only infer what the author thinks about the complaint itself. (E) can be eliminated.

(B) is the best choice.

I hope that helps!

Nam Vu · Answer

It can be inferred from the passage that the minimal basis for a complaint to the International Trade Commission is
which of the following?
(A) A foreign competitor has received a subsidy from a foreign government.
(B) A foreign competitor has substantially increased the volume of products shipped to the United States.
(C) A foreign competitor is selling products in the United States at less than fair market value.
(D) The company requesting import relief has been injured by the sale of imports in the United States.
(E) The company requesting import relief has been barred from exporting products to the country of its foreign
competitor.
Then why the answer is D not E? I could not navigate the proof for the answer. Thank you for your help!

arvind910619 · Answer

Hi can anyone help me with question 7
. According to the passage, companies have the general impression that International Trade Commission import relief practices have

(A) caused unpredictable fluctuations in volumes of imports and exports
(B) achieved their desired effect only under unusual circumstances
(C) actually helped companies that have requested import relief
(D) been opposed by the business community
(E) had less impact on international companies than the business community expected

I chose E .
Please explain the reasoning why C is correct

ishita27 · Answer

GMATNinja  Can you please explain Quest. 7 ?

I am not able to get to the answer

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 7 
 
Here's question 7:
 
The most relevant piece of the passage to answer question 7 is the first sentence of the second paragraph:

"Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped."  
In other words, import relief has had an overall negative impact on US companies. This is  contrary  to the general impression -- so, the general impression must be that import relief has had an overall positive impact on US companies.

We're looking for an answer choice that captures this general impression.

There is no mention in the passage of fluctuations in volumes of imports and exports, whether or not they were predictable. There is nothing to suggest companies have this as their general impression of import relief practices.

We can cross out (A).

Nope, the general impression is that import relief policies have had a largely positive effect. This implies that the policies have been effective in most cases, not only in a few "unusual circumstances."

(B) is out.

This looks good! The "general impression" is that the import relief policies had a positive impact on most companies. (C) aligns nicely with this analysis.

Keep (C) for now.

The first paragraph tells us that many companies have made the  "search for legal protection from import competition into a  major line of work ."

This does not suggest the business community opposes the import relief practices. (D) is not the answer to this question.

We don't know how the business community expected import relief policies to impact international companies, so we don't know whether those expectations were met. There's simply no support for (E) in the passage.

This leaves us with (C) as the answer to this question.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja · Answer

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!

NamaySharma · Answer

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

GMATNinja · Answer

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!

Rickooreo · Answer

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

GMATNinja · 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!

GMATNinja · Answer

As you suggest, the second paragraph doesn't  explicitly  tell us whose "general impression" the author is referring to. Is it the general impression of companies? Of the general public? Of someone else? Let's dig into the passage to see if we can find any clues.

Starting at the beginning, notice the first paragraph tells us that many "United States companies have...made the search for legal protection from import competition a major line of work." So broadly speaking, in the first paragraph, the author is analyzing the behavior of United States companies that seek legal protection against import competition. Let's keep this in mind as we keep reading.

Moving on to the second paragraph, notice that the author's main point from first paragraph gives us some useful context. Based on the first paragraph, we already know that companies are trying to help themselves by seeking import relief. Consequently, they  must  believe that import relief is helpful -- otherwise they probably wouldn't seek it. This confirms that the first sentence of the second paragraph is specifically referring the general impression of the  companies  -- namely, that "this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped."

As you point out, the second paragraph doesn't support this conclusion explicitly. But given the author's main point in the first paragraph, it's the most reasonable interpretation.

Generally speaking, keeping track of the author's purpose from one paragraph to the next can help clarify the meaning of the passage as a whole, as well as any details you might encounter. Taken on its own, the second paragraph might be considered ambiguous (as you suggest). But if you consider the context established in paragraph one, the meaning of paragraph two becomes more clear.

I hope that helps!

KarishmaB · Answer

2. It can be inferred from the passage that the minimal basis for a complaint to the International Trade Commission is which of the following?

(A) A foreign competitor has received a subsidy from a foreign government.
(B) A foreign competitor has substantially increased the volume of products shipped to the United States.
(C) A foreign competitor is selling products in the United States at less than fair market value.
(D) The company requesting import relief has been injured by the sale of imports in the United States.
(E) The company requesting import relief has been barred from exporting products to the country of its foreign competitor.

Check out this excerpt from the passage:

280 complaints alleging damage  from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments . Another 340 charge that  foreign companies “dumped” their products  in the United States  at “less than fair value.”  Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that  an industry has been injured by imports  is sufficient grounds to seek relief.

The first four options are mentioned in the passage. Option (E) is not. There is no discussion about any company being barred from exporting.

Answer (E)

ArnauG · Answer

1.  The passage is chiefly concerned with  (B)  warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences.
The passage discusses how the search for legal protection from import competition has hurt more companies than it has helped. It highlights the complexities and unintended consequences of import relief laws and how they may not meet the strategic needs of all units within the same parent company.
 2.  It can be inferred from the passage that the minimal basis for a complaint to the International Trade Commission is  (D)  The company requesting import relief has been injured by the sale of imports in the United States.
The passage mentions that even the simple claim of an industry being injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek import relief. This implies that a company requesting import relief must demonstrate that it has been injured by the sale of imports in the United States.
 3.  The last paragraph performs which of the following functions in the passage?  (E)  It cites a specific case that illustrates a problem presented more generally in the previous paragraph.
The last paragraph presents a specific case of a complaint to the ITC, where a foreign conglomerate with United States operations sought import relief against a United States company with foreign operations. This case illustrates the problem discussed in the previous paragraph regarding the potential misuse of import relief laws by foreign companies against United States companies.
 4.  The passage warns of which of the following dangers?  (D)  Companies that are not United States-owned may seek legal protection from import competition under United States import relief laws.
The passage discusses the danger of foreign companies using import relief laws against United States-owned companies. It highlights a case where a "United States" company, which was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, sought import relief against "Canadian" companies, including a subsidiary of a Chicago firm. This demonstrates the danger that companies not owned by the United States may seek legal protection under United States import relief laws.
 5.  The passage suggests that which of the following is most likely to be true of United States trade laws?  (D)  Those that help one unit within a parent company will not necessarily help other units in the company.
The passage emphasizes the complexity of global relationships within corporations and states that a system of import relief laws is unlikely to meet the strategic needs of all units under the same parent company. This suggests that trade laws that help one unit within a parent company may not necessarily help other units in the company.
 6.  It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which of the following about the complaint mentioned in the last paragraph?  (B)  The complaint violated the intent of import relief laws.
The passage describes the case of the complaint where a foreign conglomerate with United States operations sought import relief against a United States company with foreign operations. The use of import relief laws by the foreign conglomerate against the United States company violates the intent of import relief laws, which are designed to protect domestic industries.
 7.  According to the passage, companies have the general impression that International Trade Commission import relief practices have  (C)  actually helped companies that have requested import relief.
The passage states that contrary to the general impression, the quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. This implies that companies have the general impression that import relief practices by the International Trade Commission have actually helped companies that have requested import relief.
 8.  According to the passage, the International Trade Commission is involved in which of the following?  (A)  Investigating allegations of unfair import competition.
The passage mentions the role of the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) in receiving complaints and investigating allegations of damage from imports that benefit from subsidies, products being dumped at less than fair value, and overall injury from imports. Therefore, the ITC is involved in investigating allegations of unfair import competition.

rsvelc · Answer

GMATNinja , Could you help with Question 4?

Both C and D seem to be threats, How can we eliminate C?

kittle · Answer

Hey  KarishmaB

I couldn't comprehend this paragraph properly. Can you dumb it down for me?

"Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect. Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the United States company’s products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties."

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

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

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

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