The first paragraph describes two types of unfair practices addressed by the ITC: 1) those involving damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments and 2) foreign companies dumping products in the United States at “less than fair value.” At the end of the paragraph, the author states: "Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds (i.e. a sufficient basis) to seek relief."

Thus, even if unfair practices (such as the two described earlier in the first paragraph) are not taking place, a company can seek relief as long as it can claim that its "industry has been injured by imports." This minimal basis for a complaint to the ITC is accurately described in choice (D).

As for choice (E), the passage does not describe ITC involvement in cases when companies are barred from exporting products to the country of its foreign competitors. Even if those companies could seek relief from the ITC is such cases, the passage does not suggest that this is the "minimal basis" for making a complaint to the ITC.

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.

Red - Read it and understand it. Main Idea of each paragraph.
Green - Skip or skim , bold part - just focus on this part as what is happening in Green part.

Logical flow - very very important
Para -1 - Context - Many US companies search for protection from import competition and seek relief . ITC received many complain. From this paragraph you can inferred that Author is not happy with this steps by US.
How i can inferred this - "unfortunate" word in first line.
Para -2 - Author explained "this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped"
Para -3 - Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect.
Para -4 - E.g. of such scenario - he most brazen case occurred when the ITC investigated.

Author attitude - not happy.

1. The passage is chiefly concerned with
General question , must be inline with author attitude and logical flow

(A) arguing against the increased internationalization of United States corporations - Narrow , mentioned in 3rd paragraph
(B) warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences - Correct , inline with author attitude and logical flow.
(C) demonstrating that foreign-based firms receive more subsidies from their governments than United States firms receive from the United States government - OOS
(D) advocating the use of trade restrictions for “dumped” products but not for other imports - No
(E) recommending a uniform method for handling claims of unfair trade practices - OOS

2. It can be inferred from the passage that the minimal basis for a complaint to the International Trade Commission is which of the following?
First understand the question , it is inferred question then option "must be true" and second it is asking for minimal base i.e. least base

(A) A foreign competitor has received a subsidy from a foreign government. Given in 1st para
(B) A foreign competitor has substantially increased the volume of products shipped to the United States. - Given in first para
(C) A foreign competitor is selling products in the United States at less than fair market value. - Given in 1st para
(D) The company requesting import relief has been injured by the sale of imports in the United States. (last line of 1st para)
(E) The company requesting import relief has been barred from exporting products to the country of its foreign competitor. - OOS as passage not discussed about anythings related to export.

The last paragraph performs which of the following functions in the passage?
as in the logical flow - last paragraph is e.g.

(A) It summarizes the discussion thus far and suggests additional areas of research. - No
(B) It presents a recommendation based on the evidence presented earlier. - No
(C) It discusses an exceptional case in which the results expected by the author of the passage were not obtained. -NO
(D) It introduces an additional area of concern not mentioned earlier. -NO
(E) It cites a specific case that illustrates a problem presented more generally in the previous paragraph.- Correct


The passage warns of which of the following dangers?
Danger word mention in the 3rd paragraph, lets read it first.

(A) Companies in the United States may receive no protection from imports unless they actively seek protection from import competition. - 2nd part is wrong as it not mentioned anywhere
(B) Companies that seek legal protection from import competition may incur legal costs that far exceed any possible gain. - No
(C) Companies that are United States-owned but operate internationally may not be eligible for protection from import competition under the laws of the countries in which their plants operate. No
(D) Companies that are not United States-owned may seek legal protection from import competition under United States import relief laws. Yes, same mentioned in 3rd para
(E) Companies in the United States that import raw materials may have to pay duties on those materials. - No


The passage suggests that which of the following is most likely to be true of United States trade laws?
Read 2nd and 3rd para

(A) They will eliminate the practice of “dumping” products in the United States. - No
(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. Mention in last para as a e.g.
(D) Those that help one unit within a parent company will not necessarily help other units in the company. yes, in 2nd para
(E) Those that are applied to international companies will accomplish their intended result. - No

Yeah Correct
Will keep this in mind next time