Question : 11) Which of the following describes the infant industry argument : 1387681

11) Which of the following describes the infant industry argument for protectionism?

A) An industry must be protected in its early stages of development so that firms can compete with government-subsidized foreign competition.

B) Some strategic industries must be protected to ensure adequate supplies of resources needed for national defense in emergencies.

C) Domestic producers in high-wage countries must be protected from foreign producers in low-wage countries to produce a level playing field.

D) Domestic producers require time to gain experience and lower their unit costs; this will allow these producers to compete successfully in international markets.

12) The process of countries becoming more open to foreign trade and investment is known as

A) autarky.

B) foreign exchange.

C) globalization.

D) protectionism.

13) Economists believe the most persuasive argument for protectionism is to protect infant industries. But the argument has a drawback. What is this drawback?

A) Governments always make the level of protection for infant industries too high.

B) Governments are usually too impatient and do not allow protection to remain in place long enough to allow industries to be competitive in international markets.

C) Governments usually use tariffs, rather than quotas, to protect infant industries in order to collect tariff revenue. (Quotas do not result in government revenue).

D) Protection lessens the need for firms to become productive enough to compete with foreign firms; this often results in infant industries never “growing up.”

14) Suppose that American firms claim that protectionism in Canada is on the rise as the Canadian government attempts to protect its infant industries. This protectionism will cause the greatest harm to

A) Canadian manufacturers.

B) the Canadian government.

C) manufacturers who export to Canada.

D) Canadian consumers.

15) Suppose that American firms claim that protectionism in Canada is on the rise as the Canadian government attempts to protect its infant industries with a “Buy Canadian” provision. This policy, similar to the original “Buy American” provision in the 2009 U.S. stimulus bill, is likely to cause

A) exporting countries to retaliate by placing trade barriers on Canadian imports.

B) Canadian manufacturers to become more efficient.

C) Canadian companies to pay lower prices for protected products.

D) most countries to reduce their own trade barriers to be able to better compete with Canadian imports at home.

16) The selling of a product for a price below its cost of production is called

A) fair competition.

B) dumping.

C) unfair competition.

D) operating at a loss.

17) Imposing tariffs in cases of dumping

A) is allowed under the WTO agreement.

B) is not allowed under the WTO agreement.

C) is not addressed by the WTO agreement.

D) has never occurred, even though it is allowed under the WTO agreement.

18) Measuring the impact of a quota or tariff on the U.S. economy is an example of ________. Stating that a quota or tariff should be eliminated is an example of ________.

A) statistical analysis; economic analysis

B) positive analysis; normative analysis

C) econometric analysis; protectionism

D) trade analysis; an opinion

19) One reason for the success that firms have in getting the government to erect barriers to foreign competition is that jobs lost to foreign competition are easy to identify but jobs created by foreign trade are often hard to identify. Which of the following is a second reason?

A) The costs that tariffs and quotas impose on consumers are large in total but relatively small per person.

B) People who benefit from foreign trade tend not to vote in elections; people who are harmed by foreign trade are much more likely to vote.

C) Firms that benefit from trade barriers have more money to lobby government officials to support the barriers than do firms that are harmed by trade barriers.

D) The benefits from free trade are less than the costs.

Continue to order Get a quote

July 1, 2023

Distinguishing Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:

· Textbook: Chapter 8, 9, 17 (Introduction)

· Lesson

· Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

Click on the following tabs to review the concepts that will be addressed in this activity:

A valid structure is the way in which an argument is put together that assures it will pass the test of logical strength.

Deductive: In deductive arguments, the speaker asserts that her premises are true and, therefore, her conclusion must be accepted. Remember that in a deductive argument, logical strength does not depend on the literal truth of the premises. When we test for logical strength, we assume the premises are true. Once we determine that the argument is logically valid, we can then look at the actual – not presumed – truth of the premises.

Inductive: In inductive arguments, the speaker presents evidence that she claims support the probable truth of her conclusion – that her conclusion is the most likely true – and so you should accept it.

The Basic Structure of Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Argument examples:

Deductive Argument Example: “Tightening laws restricting the use and possession of firearms does not protect average law-abiding citizens; it only puts them at greater risk. Enforcing licensing restrictions, trigger locks, and waiting periods makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, and, as a result, encourages criminal activity. Only criminals benefit when ordinary citizens are deprived of their right to own a firearm and protect themselves, their homes, and their families" (Lott, 2000, p. 169)

Lott, J., (2000). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun-control laws. University of Chicago Press.

The argument boils down to this:

· Laws that are obeyed by ordinary citizens and not obeyed by criminals are laws that put ordinary citizens at risk.

· Tight gun laws are laws that are obeyed only by ordinary citizens.

· Tight gun laws put ordinary citizens at risk.

However, the argument itself is composed of three intertwined syllogisms:

Only ordinary citizens are persons who respect tight gun laws.
Criminal persons are not ordinary citizens.
Therefore, criminals do not respect tight gun laws.

Tight gun laws restrict only ordinary citizens.
No criminal is an ordinary citizen.
No criminal is restricted by tight gun laws.

Laws that disfavor the good are laws that favor the bad.
Tight gun laws favor the bad.
Therefore, tight gun laws disfavor the good.

Notice that you cannot remove any of the “legs” and maintain the claim. Notice, also, that the reasons are closely connected and depend on or follow from each other. Notice, also, that the first premise (called the major premise) must be accepted as true, or the entire argument fails.

Inductive Argument: The United States is too dependent upon foreign oil. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, we rely on imported foreign oil for about 45% of our needs. Of the imported oil, most comes from Canada, but 22% comes from countries in the Middle East. Undeniably, this dependence shapes our foreign policy. We have vast oil reserves that could make us energy independent. Development of these resources would produce much-needed jobs, many of them in areas of the country suffering most from the recession. We should be developing an energy policy that makes us energy independent.

· Reason: We import 45% of our oil.

· Reason: Middle East oil imports shape our foreign policy.

· Reason: Our vast oil reserves could make us energy independent.

· Reason: Development of oil reserves could produce much needed jobs.

· Conclusion: For any or all of the above, independent reasons, we should become energy independent.

Notice that any one of these reasons, standing alone, could support the conclusions; they are not logically related to one another as they would be in a syllogism.

Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:

· Find and post examples of deductive and inductive arguments. Do NOT use an argument example which clearly indicates it is an example of an inductive/deductive argument.

· For each example, evaluate its logical strength, using the concepts and ideas presented in the textbook readings, the lesson, and any other source you find that helps you to evaluate the validity (deductive) or strength (inductive) of the argument. You can use examples from the text, or you can find examples elsewhere.

oEditorials and opinion columns are a good source, as are letters to the editor. Blogs will also often be based on arguments.

oUse mapping and evaluative techniques to make sure it is an argument.

· Is it inductive or deductive? Explain why.

· Does it pass the tests of validity and strength? Explain.