Reading Comprehension

Source: OG 12th Ed

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.

Q1
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.

OA: D; I pointed it in passage; however, I could not able to understand that why this is correct.

Q2
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.

OA: B


Can someone please explain how to solve these two questions?