arorag wrote:Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:
Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?
A. Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a
very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.
B. The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies
to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
C. For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
D. Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of
shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in
recent years.
E. Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from
wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.

arorag wrote:Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:
Krenland�s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland�s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial�s argument?
A. Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a
very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers� revenue comes from exports.
B. The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies
to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
C. For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
D. Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of
shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in
recent years.
E. Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from
wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.

arorag wrote:Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:
Krenland�s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland�s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial�s argument?
A. Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a
very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers� revenue comes from exports.
B. The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies
to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
C. For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
D. Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of
shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in
recent years.
E. Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from
wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.

TheGraduate wrote:The conclusion says that a reduction of cheap steel imports will benefit the steelmaking companies and employment.

C: For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.

C weakens since it says that Krenland's steelmakers who use raw steel will benefit from the reduced price of raw steel.

C addresses certain aspects but it does not address the cause of Krenland's steelmakers trying to sell raw steel. If there are low priced steel imports, employment and the companies using raw steel may benefit but the companies trying to produce raw steel will not benefit as they will face competition from the cheap imports.

Thus C does not weaken the important point in the argument that Krenland's steelmakers (who sell raw steel) are losing domestic sales.

Also, in my opinion the point about Krenland's steelmakers (who sell raw steel) is the sole point in the argument.

Please clarify.