OG两道题，求解

luke-216

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
以上在表达什么意思？
    69. 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.
这道题答案为何B？

Vickyliu

我也做了这道题，当时就在B和E之间纠结，其实你仔细看题目，说的是author的想法，而不是complainant的想法~综合全篇文章来看，最后一段是接着之前段说的，据的一个最brazen的例子，如果你从最后一段难看到作者的想法，往前读读，就可以找到了~

queenie924

Where did you see the author comment on the "best interest" part in the passage?

You cannot bring your own judgement to the GMAT test when answering inference questions.

ChinaHawk

E为毛不对啊

queenie924

The intent of import relief laws is supposed to protect a domestic company against a foreign company with the final goal aimed at benefiting the US business and economy.  But in this case, the "domestic company" is a branch of a foreign company and the "foreign company" happens to operate a huge domestic branch.  The demarcation between domestic and foreign is blurred. Neither company is truly a domestic company.  They are wolves in sheep's clothing.