( C )

　　Many United States companies have 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(补贴) 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 claimed, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief(救济).

　　Contrary to the general impression, this request for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop a complicated 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 shameful case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations(控诉) that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to deice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate(联合企业)with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The “United States” company claiming injury was a unit of a Dutch conglomerate, while the “Canadian” companies included a unit of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.

　　63.The passage is chiefly concerned with_______________

　　A. arguing against the increased internationalization of US corporations

　　B. warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences

　　C. recommending a uniform method for handling claims of unfair trade practices

　　D. advocating the use of trade restrictions for "dumped" products but not for other imports.

　　64.What can be inferred about the minimal basis for a complaint to the ITC ____________.

　　A. A foreign competitor is selling products in the US at less than fair market value.

　　B. A foreign competitor has greatly increased the volume of products shipped to the US.

　　C. The company requesting import relief has been banned from exporting products.

　　D. The company requesting import relief has been injured by the sale of imports in the US.

　　65.What is the function of the last paragraph?

　　A. It summarizes the discussion and suggests additional areas for research.

　　B. It makes a recommendation based on the evidence presented earlier.

　　C. It uses a specific case to illustrate a problem in the previous paragraph.

　　D. It introduces an additional area of concern not mentioned earlier.

　　66.Which of the following is most likely to be true of US trade laws?

　　A. They will eliminate the practice of "dumping" products in the US.

　　B. Those applied to international companies will help to gain more profits.

　　C. They will affect US trade with Canada more negatively than trade with other nations.

　　D. Those helping one unit within a parent company won’t necessarily help other units.

　　Section C

　　Directions: Read the following passage. Fill in each blank with a proper sentence given in the box. Each sentence can be used only once. Note that there are two more sentences than you need.

　　As people recognize the dangers of fossil fuel plants, especially the risk of global warming from carbon dioxide production—nuclear power begins to look more attractive. But what about the waste—all that highly radioactive debris(残核) that will endure for thousands of years? Nuclear waste is one of the biggest technical issues that any future president is likely to face.______67________Plutonium(钚) has a half-life of 24,000 years. Even after 100,000 years, the radiation will still be above 10% of the level it had when it left the reactor.______68_________How can we possibly prove that this material can be kept safe for 100000 years?

　　Still the US government persists in pursuing “safe”nuclear waste disposal(处理). It has created nuclear waste facilities buried deep within Yucca Mountain , Nevada. To keep the waste safe, the storage rooms are 1,000feet below the surface. _______69__________. It needs at least 2 square miles. The cost of the facility is expected to reach $100 billion ,with hundreds of billions of dollars more in operating costs. To make matters worse, earthquakes happen often in the Yucca Mountain region. More than 600 earthquakes of magnitude of 2.5 and higher have occurred within 50 miles in the last decade alone. Although that was millions of years ago, how sure can we be that the waste facility won’t be torn apart by another eruption?

　　________70_________ Why not just send the waste into the sun? Well, maybe that’s not such a good idea, since on launch some rockets do crash back down to the earth. Some scientists have proposed that the waste be put in ships and sunk under the oceans. Yet just the fact that scientists make such suggestions seems to emphasize how the problem really is.