Bunuel
Trade protection is bad policy. Take the case of the microcomputer industry. The United States government attempted to restore the computer chip market to United States manufacturers, who had ceased production in the face of an abundant supply of cheap chips from foreign manufacturers. Under trade protection, it was expected that, as government-imposed quotas and excise taxes forced the price of foreign chips to rise, United States manufactures would reenter the market. They did, but at only slightly lower prices than the now-high prices of foreign firms. The lesson has been simple: trade protection means that United States manufactures gain while United States consumers lose.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the author’s argument relies?
(A) It is unreasonable to expect that government-imposed quotas and excise taxes will reduce prices for United States consumers.
(B) United States manufacturers of computer chips are more concerned with high profits that are foreign manufacturers.
(C) The United States government’s primary purpose in trade protection is to restore markets and profits to United States manufacturers.
(D) With respect to trade protection, the microcomputer industry is representative of United States industry in general.
(E) The quality of the chips produced by United States manufacturers is better than the quality of the chips produced by foreign manufacturers.
Premises:Take the case of the microcomputer industry
The story of microcomputer industry:
The United States government attempted to restore the computer chip market to United States manufacturers, who had ceased production in the face of an abundant supply of cheap chips from foreign manufacturers.
Under trade protection, it was expected that, as government-imposed quotas and excise taxes forced the price of foreign chips to rise, United States manufactures would reenter the market.
They did, but at only slightly lower prices than the now-high prices of foreign firms.
The lesson has been simple: trade protection means that United States manufactures gain while United States consumers lose.Conclusion:Trade protection is bad policy.
To arrive at the conclusion, the author has made many jumps. Based on the microcomputer industry, the author is generalizing that trade protection is a bad policy (for every industry). Also, the author assumes that a policy is bad if it only favors the manufacturers and does not help the consumers.
Hence he has certainly assumed (D)
(D) With respect to trade protection, the microcomputer industry is representative of United States industry in general.(A) It is unreasonable to expect that government-imposed quotas and excise taxes will reduce prices for United States consumers.The author expects that they should reduce prices for consumers. He does not assume that it is unreasonable.
(B) United States manufacturers of computer chips are more concerned with high profits that are foreign manufacturers.No comparison between the two is assumed.
(C) The United States government’s primary purpose in trade protection is to restore markets and profits to United States manufacturers.The author does not assume that this is the Govt's primary purpose. He says that this is what happened in the industry. What the govt's purpose was he doesn't mention or assume.
(E) The quality of the chips produced by United States manufacturers is better than the quality of the chips produced by foreign manufacturers.Not discussed.
Answer (D)
Some discussions on Assumption questions:
https://youtu.be/0j4tovGifIg
https://youtu.be/QoIAgREUfk0