4月份GMAT作文机经：出口糖以减少财政赤字

　　【原始】

　　貌似是新题啊T_____T

　　一家报纸上的文章说：为了改善Sacchar这个国家的trade dificit，应该lowering the price of sugar, sugar刚好是S国的 major export.因为降低了价格后，S国就能在市场上跟别的国家竞争了(other counties, compete)。所以，给sugar降价能够ruduce trade dificit.

　　1.降价不一定能使其竞争力增加，也许别的商人在采购更看重国家与国家之间的关系、或者某些政策，总之就算降了价，其成交量也未必会上升。

　　2.改善trade dificit不是只能靠降价这一个办法，还有其他办法，比如改善国家的进出口政策啊神马的。

　　3.S国跟别的国家对比，未必能降价到有竞争力的价格。可能别国因为环境气候适宜，盛产sugar，成本低，所以价格低。而S国不适合种植产sugar的植物，所以成本消耗大，无论怎么降价，也无法跟别国匹敌(这个思路好像有问题，请无视我= =)

　　【考古】OG12 40

　　The following appeared as part of an article in a weekly newsmagazine.

　　“The country of Sacchar can best solve its current trade deficit problem by lowering the price of sugar, its primary export. Such an action would make Sacchar better able to compete for markets with other sugar-exporting countries. The sales of Sacchar’s sugar abroad would increase, and this increase would substantially reduce Sacchar’s trade deficit.’

　　【译文】

　　以下是周刊中的一片文章的节选：

　　S国可以运用降低蔗糖的价格的方法，来很好的解决了它最近的贸易赤字，而蔗糖一直是其主要的出口商品。这一行为将能使S国在与其他蔗糖出口国的市场竞争中处于有利地位，而S国海外的蔗糖销量将会增加，而销量的增加将带来贸易赤字的大量减少。

　　【参考思路】

　　1比起价格下降而带来的损失产量提高的影响是不是更大不是定数Increasing sales by lowering the price of sugar will not yield an increase in income unless the increase in sales is sufficient to overcome the loss in income due to the lower price. in the absence of ...

　　2可能性价比本来就很有竞争力了不需要降价，也可能价格已经很低了没有降低的空间了

　　3降低进口可能是一个更好的办法A trade-deficit occurs when a country spends more on imports than it earns from exports. However, the author provides no evidence that substantiates this assumption. It is possible that revenues from imports will increase dramatically in the near future; if so, the course of action proposed by the author might be unnecessary to solve Sacchar's trade deficit problem. To the extent that the case...

　　【参考范文】

　　The author of this article argues that the country of Sacchar can best solve its current trade deficit problem by lowering the price of its main export, sugar. The line of reasoning is that this action would make Sacchar more competitive with other sugar-exporting countries, thereby increasing sales of Sacchar’s sugar abroad and, in turn, substantially reducing the trade-deficit. This line of reasoning is unconvincing for a couple of reasons.

　　In the first place, this argument is based on an oversimplified analysis of the trade deficit problem Sacchar currently faces. A trade-deficit occurs when a country spends more on imports than it earns from exports. The author’s argument relies on the assumption that earnings from imports will remain constant. However, the author provides no evidence that substantiates this assumption. It is possible that revenues from imports will increase dramatically in the near future; if so, the course of action proposed by the author might be unnecessary to solve Sacchar’s trade deficit problem. Conversely, it is possible that revenues from imports are likely to decrease dramatically in the near future. To the extent that this is the case, lowering sugar prices may have a negligible countervailing effect, depending on the demand for Sacchar’s sugar.

　　In the second place, increasing sales by lowering the price of sugar will not yield an increase in income unless the increase in sales is sufficient to overcome the loss in income due to the lower price. This raises three questions the author fails to address. First, will a price decrease in fact stimulate demand? Second, is demand sufficient to meet the increase in supply? Third, can Sacchar increase the sugar production sufficiently to overcome the deficit? In the absence of answers to these questions, we cannot assess the author’s proposal.

　　In conclusion, the author provides an incomplete analysis of the problem and, as a result, provides a questionable solution. To better evaluate the proposal, we would need to know how revenues from imports are likely to change in the future. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide evidence that demand is sufficient to meet the proposed increase in supply, and that Sacchar has sufficient resources to accommodate the increase.