建议使用官方纸质指南,查看对照完整题目
Arboria is floundering in the global marketplace, incurring devastating losses in market position and profits. The problem is not Arboria's products, but Arboria's trade policy. Arboria faces the prospect of continuing economic loss until Arborian business and political leaders recognize the fundamental differences between Arborian and foreign economic systems. Today the key trade issue is not free trade versus protectionism but diminishing trade versus expanding trade.
Arboria is operating with an obsolete trade policy, an artifact of the mid-1940s when Arboria and Whorfland dominated the global economy, tariffs were the principal obstacle to trade, and Arborian supremacy was uncontested in virtually all industries. In the intervening decades, economic circumstances have shifted radically. Arborian trade policy has not.
Today, Arboria's trade policy seems paralyzed by the relentless conflict between proponents of “free” and “fair” trade. The free traders argue that Arborian markets should be open, and the movement of goods and services across national borders unrestrained. The fair traders assert that access to Arborian markets should be restricted until Arborian businesses are granted equal access to foreign markets. They contend that free trade is impossible while other nations erect barriers to Arborian exports.
Both are correct: fair trade requires equal access and equal access leads to free trade. But both sides base their positions on the same two outdated premises:
1. Global commerce is conducted under the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and dominated by Arboria and similar economic systems abroad.
2. Multilateral negotiations are the most effective way to resolve pressing trade issues.
Both assumptions are wrong. The 40-year-old GATT now covers less than 7 percent of global commerce. World trade is no longer dominated by the free-trade economies; nearly 75 percent is conducted by economic systems operating with principles at odds with those of Arboria. Forging a multilateral trade policy consensus among so many diverse economic systems has become virtually impossible. And while multilateral talks drag on, Arboria misses opportunities for trade expansion.
【OG20-P417-496题】
Which of the following statements best summarizes the author's opinion of “free traders” and “fair traders”?
-
分析A选项xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
分析B选项xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
分析C选项xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
分析D选项xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
分析E选项xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



1. 推断题
A:作者认为争论这两者是无意义的,因为Arboria对这两种政策基于的假设就是错误的,那么在错误的前提上进行争论,肯定不是“healthy and effective”。
B:选free trade还是fair trade已经不是Arboria该关注的重点了
C:同B
D:已经不适用于现在的全球经济
E:一致
题目讨论 (4条评论)

-
贾思敏
题型:事实信息题 视角:author(关于''free traders” and “fair traders”的看法观点) But both sides base their positions on the same two outdated premises 定位这一句 + 作者对这两个trades和traders的态度倾向:outdated 过时了,不符合当代的发展,简单粗暴来讲就是作者觉得这两个trades以及traders都是不ok的,没有偏颇哪一方,直接定位E选项out-of-date、do not reflect current economic conditions 用态度倾向法就很快就排除出来: A. provides a healthy and effective 说优点,不符合作者的态度倾向 B. fair trade are essentially correct, while...not...有偏颇,不是作者的态度倾向 C. The proponents of free trade are better able to..than fair traders 也有偏颇,不是作者的态度倾向 D. because neither takes multilateral negotiations into account 这不符合,在premise那个层次就有提及multilateral negotiations是 the most effective way to resolve pressing trade issues.再联系一下最后一段,他们不是没有考虑这个多边谈判,而是他们的多边谈判已经是consensus among so many diverse economic systems has become virtually impossible不符合当代的发展了。
2
0 回复 2021-10-01 00:14:55
-
Run123
But both sides base their positions on the same two outdated premises: 改写: 原文outdated=答案 out- of -date
0
0 回复 2020-05-19 10:44:30
-
emily666
两个观念都过时了
0
0 回复 2020-05-14 18:58:32
-
Zehnstein
But both sides base their positions on the same two outdated premises:
0
0 回复 2020-02-24 22:25:15