Reading Comprehension Quiz 1 | ENGLISH

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answers the questions that follow.
The case for international trade is essentially the same as that for domestic trade. As Adam Smith convincingly demonstrated in The Wealth of Nations (1776), individuals are better off if they specialize instead of trying to be economically self-sufficient. The resulting international division of labor enables all workers to be more productive. Trade restrictions impose considerable costs on consumers while trade makes it possible for businesses to choose from a wider variety of inputs (materials used to make goods) than would be possible if they relied solely on domestic suppliers. The freedom of firms to choose from an array of inputs improves efficiency, promotes innovation in technology and management, encourages the transfer of technology, and otherwise enhances the growth of productivity. Free trade does not, as many proponents argue, create jobs. Although exports create jobs, imports frequently destroy them so there is no net gain in jobs. But free trade does shift a country’s resources into those goods and services in which its workers are the most productive. Significantly, in the year 2000 export-related jobs in the United States paid 13 percent to 18 percent more than other jobs. The same was true in developing countries: The firms that produced goods for export tended to pay higher wages than those that produced only for domestic markets. By contrast, the world’s poorest citizens tend to produce few or no internationally traded goods or services. The last three decades have seen a significant improvement in living standards for hundreds of millions of people. Without exception, the countries in which living standards have improved most rapidly have substantially reduced trade barriers and increased their exports. Since 1970 Asia’s “four little tigers”—Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore—have been transformed from impoverished areas into some of the world’s richest areas. Many of their citizens now enjoy living standards comparable to those of the United States and Europe. Not coincidentally, these four entities are among the 20 largest traders in the world. The positive impact of international trade on economic growth can be dramatically seen in China. From 1978 to 1998, China’s total imports and exports grew from $21 billion to $324 billion. During this same period, the country’s per capita income increased by more than 8 percent per year, helping raise some 200 million people out of absolute poverty. By contrast, India’s economic growth had been significantly low due to the persistence of high tariffs and restrictions on foreign investment in this time period. Activists in the United States have often criticized free trade on the grounds that businesses are simply attempting to exploit low-wage labor in developing countries. They point to the sweatshop conditions in which goods such as textiles, toys, and sneakers are produced for export to the United States and other wealthy countries. In fact, the most effective way for the world’s richest countries to promote economic development in poor countries is to lower their tariffs and other import restrictions on exports from the world’s poorest countries. Such a free trade policy, along with debt relief, offers these countries their only hope for improving the living standards of their impoverished citizens. Unfortunately, such a policy prescription is strongly opposed by trade unions in the United States and Europe, which fear a loss of jobs for their members. Imports from developing countries represent only 4 percent of total U.S. production. Are such fears justified? Do imports from low-wage countries adversely affect U.S. workers? Since 1993, the United States has significantly lowered its trade barriers and created 20 million new jobs. In 1999 the United States enjoyed its lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. At the same time, the U.S. economy has grown at record levels. Moreover, most U.S. trade is with other rich countries: The country’s biggest trading partners are Canada, Europe, and Japan. All of these countries have wages that are comparable to those of the United States. Nonetheless, trade does change the composition of employment. As trade barriers decline, workers in industries that are no longer competitive on world markets do experience increased unemployment. However, these losses are accompanied by increased employment in those export-oriented industries in which developed countries continue to enjoy a comparative advantage. Indeed, an important purpose of free trade is precisely to move American workers out of unskilled jobs in textiles to high productivity jobs such as in computers and software production. It is short-sighted to focus on the job losses associated with imports while losing sight of the job creation from the increase in exports. The increase in imports from a low-wage country such as Mexico is a good, not a bad thing for the U.S. economy. As Mexico becomes richer, its imports from the United States increase. By increasing employment in export-oriented high-skilled jobs, the export of low-skilled jobs to Mexico raises rather than lowers U.S. living standards. To be sure, this transition is often a painful one. However, the appropriate response is not to maintain trade barriers to keep low-skilled jobs in the United States and thus prevent Mexican workers from raising their living standards. It is rather to provide sufficient funds for worker retraining. The most important reason for the long-term erosion of wages for unskilled workers in the United States in recent decades has not been free trade, but low productivity growth. Productivity growth means that workers are able to produce more goods and services in less time. Higher productivity increases profits and enables employers to offer higher wages. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, many industries in the United States were actually less productive in 1997 than they were in 1988, forcing wages down. Once again, the appropriate policy response to low productivity growth is not to maintain or increase trade barriers but rather to provide the education and job training that will enable workers to qualify for more productive, and thus better-paying, jobs. Foreign workers in developing countries should not pay the price for the shortcomings of U.S. social policies. Trade liberalization has also been criticized on the grounds that it undermines environmental quality, both in the United States and in other countries. This criticism is also misplaced. A nation’s environmental quality is primarily determined by the standard of living of its citizens. To the extent that free trade enhances living standards, it improves environmental quality. The evidence is clear: the lowering of global trade barriers in recent decades has been accompanied by a steady improvement in environmental standards not only in the world’s rich countries but in a number of rapidly developing ones as well.

Q.1)From the above passage, we can conclude that the author is a proponent of:

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answers the questions that follow.
The case for international trade is essentially the same as that for domestic trade. As Adam Smith convincingly demonstrated in The Wealth of Nations (1776), individuals are better off if they specialize instead of trying to be economically self-sufficient. The resulting international division of labor enables all workers to be more productive. Trade restrictions impose considerable costs on consumers while trade makes it possible for businesses to choose from a wider variety of inputs (materials used to make goods) than would be possible if they relied solely on domestic suppliers. The freedom of firms to choose from an array of inputs improves efficiency, promotes innovation in technology and management, encourages the transfer of technology, and otherwise enhances the growth of productivity. Free trade does not, as many proponents argue, create jobs. Although exports create jobs, imports frequently destroy them so there is no net gain in jobs. But free trade does shift a country’s resources into those goods and services in which its workers are the most productive. Significantly, in the year 2000 export-related jobs in the United States paid 13 percent to 18 percent more than other jobs. The same was true in developing countries: The firms that produced goods for export tended to pay higher wages than those that produced only for domestic markets. By contrast, the world’s poorest citizens tend to produce few or no internationally traded goods or services. The last three decades have seen a significant improvement in living standards for hundreds of millions of people. Without exception, the countries in which living standards have improved most rapidly have substantially reduced trade barriers and increased their exports. Since 1970 Asia’s “four little tigers”—Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore—have been transformed from impoverished areas into some of the world’s richest areas. Many of their citizens now enjoy living standards comparable to those of the United States and Europe. Not coincidentally, these four entities are among the 20 largest traders in the world. The positive impact of international trade on economic growth can be dramatically seen in China. From 1978 to 1998, China’s total imports and exports grew from $21 billion to $324 billion. During this same period, the country’s per capita income increased by more than 8 percent per year, helping raise some 200 million people out of absolute poverty. By contrast, India’s economic growth had been significantly low due to the persistence of high tariffs and restrictions on foreign investment in this time period. Activists in the United States have often criticized free trade on the grounds that businesses are simply attempting to exploit low-wage labor in developing countries. They point to the sweatshop conditions in which goods such as textiles, toys, and sneakers are produced for export to the United States and other wealthy countries. In fact, the most effective way for the world’s richest countries to promote economic development in poor countries is to lower their tariffs and other import restrictions on exports from the world’s poorest countries. Such a free trade policy, along with debt relief, offers these countries their only hope for improving the living standards of their impoverished citizens. Unfortunately, such a policy prescription is strongly opposed by trade unions in the United States and Europe, which fear a loss of jobs for their members. Imports from developing countries represent only 4 percent of total U.S. production. Are such fears justified? Do imports from low-wage countries adversely affect U.S. workers? Since 1993, the United States has significantly lowered its trade barriers and created 20 million new jobs. In 1999 the United States enjoyed its lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. At the same time, the U.S. economy has grown at record levels. Moreover, most U.S. trade is with other rich countries: The country’s biggest trading partners are Canada, Europe, and Japan. All of these countries have wages that are comparable to those of the United States. Nonetheless, trade does change the composition of employment. As trade barriers decline, workers in industries that are no longer competitive on world markets do experience increased unemployment. However, these losses are accompanied by increased employment in those export-oriented industries in which developed countries continue to enjoy a comparative advantage. Indeed, an important purpose of free trade is precisely to move American workers out of unskilled jobs in textiles to high productivity jobs such as in computers and software production. It is short-sighted to focus on the job losses associated with imports while losing sight of the job creation from the increase in exports. The increase in imports from a low-wage country such as Mexico is a good, not a bad thing for the U.S. economy. As Mexico becomes richer, its imports from the United States increase. By increasing employment in export-oriented high-skilled jobs, the export of low-skilled jobs to Mexico raises rather than lowers U.S. living standards. To be sure, this transition is often a painful one. However, the appropriate response is not to maintain trade barriers to keep low-skilled jobs in the United States and thus prevent Mexican workers from raising their living standards. It is rather to provide sufficient funds for worker retraining. The most important reason for the long-term erosion of wages for unskilled workers in the United States in recent decades has not been free trade, but low productivity growth. Productivity growth means that workers are able to produce more goods and services in less time. Higher productivity increases profits and enables employers to offer higher wages. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, many industries in the United States were actually less productive in 1997 than they were in 1988, forcing wages down. Once again, the appropriate policy response to low productivity growth is not to maintain or increase trade barriers but rather to provide the education and job training that will enable workers to qualify for more productive, and thus better-paying, jobs. Foreign workers in developing countries should not pay the price for the shortcomings of U.S. social policies. Trade liberalization has also been criticized on the grounds that it undermines environmental quality, both in the United States and in other countries. This criticism is also misplaced. A nation’s environmental quality is primarily determined by the standard of living of its citizens. To the extent that free trade enhances living standards, it improves environmental quality. The evidence is clear: the lowering of global trade barriers in recent decades has been accompanied by a steady improvement in environmental standards not only in the world’s rich countries but in a number of rapidly developing ones as well.

Q.2Which of the following statements is true in the light of the given passage?

A. International division of labor leads to a more productive workforce
B. High imports are dangerous for the economy
C. Trade barriers lead to increased unemployment

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answers the questions that follow.
The case for international trade is essentially the same as that for domestic trade. As Adam Smith convincingly demonstrated in The Wealth of Nations (1776), individuals are better off if they specialize instead of trying to be economically self-sufficient. The resulting international division of labor enables all workers to be more productive. Trade restrictions impose considerable costs on consumers while trade makes it possible for businesses to choose from a wider variety of inputs (materials used to make goods) than would be possible if they relied solely on domestic suppliers. The freedom of firms to choose from an array of inputs improves efficiency, promotes innovation in technology and management, encourages the transfer of technology, and otherwise enhances the growth of productivity. Free trade does not, as many proponents argue, create jobs. Although exports create jobs, imports frequently destroy them so there is no net gain in jobs. But free trade does shift a country’s resources into those goods and services in which its workers are the most productive. Significantly, in the year 2000 export-related jobs in the United States paid 13 percent to 18 percent more than other jobs. The same was true in developing countries: The firms that produced goods for export tended to pay higher wages than those that produced only for domestic markets. By contrast, the world’s poorest citizens tend to produce few or no internationally traded goods or services. The last three decades have seen a significant improvement in living standards for hundreds of millions of people. Without exception, the countries in which living standards have improved most rapidly have substantially reduced trade barriers and increased their exports. Since 1970 Asia’s “four little tigers”—Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore—have been transformed from impoverished areas into some of the world’s richest areas. Many of their citizens now enjoy living standards comparable to those of the United States and Europe. Not coincidentally, these four entities are among the 20 largest traders in the world. The positive impact of international trade on economic growth can be dramatically seen in China. From 1978 to 1998, China’s total imports and exports grew from $21 billion to $324 billion. During this same period, the country’s per capita income increased by more than 8 percent per year, helping raise some 200 million people out of absolute poverty. By contrast, India’s economic growth had been significantly low due to the persistence of high tariffs and restrictions on foreign investment in this time period. Activists in the United States have often criticized free trade on the grounds that businesses are simply attempting to exploit low-wage labor in developing countries. They point to the sweatshop conditions in which goods such as textiles, toys, and sneakers are produced for export to the United States and other wealthy countries. In fact, the most effective way for the world’s richest countries to promote economic development in poor countries is to lower their tariffs and other import restrictions on exports from the world’s poorest countries. Such a free trade policy, along with debt relief, offers these countries their only hope for improving the living standards of their impoverished citizens. Unfortunately, such a policy prescription is strongly opposed by trade unions in the United States and Europe, which fear a loss of jobs for their members. Imports from developing countries represent only 4 percent of total U.S. production. Are such fears justified? Do imports from low-wage countries adversely affect U.S. workers? Since 1993, the United States has significantly lowered its trade barriers and created 20 million new jobs. In 1999 the United States enjoyed its lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. At the same time, the U.S. economy has grown at record levels. Moreover, most U.S. trade is with other rich countries: The country’s biggest trading partners are Canada, Europe, and Japan. All of these countries have wages that are comparable to those of the United States. Nonetheless, trade does change the composition of employment. As trade barriers decline, workers in industries that are no longer competitive on world markets do experience increased unemployment. However, these losses are accompanied by increased employment in those export-oriented industries in which developed countries continue to enjoy a comparative advantage. Indeed, an important purpose of free trade is precisely to move American workers out of unskilled jobs in textiles to high productivity jobs such as in computers and software production. It is short-sighted to focus on the job losses associated with imports while losing sight of the job creation from the increase in exports. The increase in imports from a low-wage country such as Mexico is a good, not a bad thing for the U.S. economy. As Mexico becomes richer, its imports from the United States increase. By increasing employment in export-oriented high-skilled jobs, the export of low-skilled jobs to Mexico raises rather than lowers U.S. living standards. To be sure, this transition is often a painful one. However, the appropriate response is not to maintain trade barriers to keep low-skilled jobs in the United States and thus prevent Mexican workers from raising their living standards. It is rather to provide sufficient funds for worker retraining. The most important reason for the long-term erosion of wages for unskilled workers in the United States in recent decades has not been free trade, but low productivity growth. Productivity growth means that workers are able to produce more goods and services in less time. Higher productivity increases profits and enables employers to offer higher wages. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, many industries in the United States were actually less productive in 1997 than they were in 1988, forcing wages down. Once again, the appropriate policy response to low productivity growth is not to maintain or increase trade barriers but rather to provide the education and job training that will enable workers to qualify for more productive, and thus better-paying, jobs. Foreign workers in developing countries should not pay the price for the shortcomings of U.S. social policies. Trade liberalization has also been criticized on the grounds that it undermines environmental quality, both in the United States and in other countries. This criticism is also misplaced. A nation’s environmental quality is primarily determined by the standard of living of its citizens. To the extent that free trade enhances living standards, it improves environmental quality. The evidence is clear: the lowering of global trade barriers in recent decades has been accompanied by a steady improvement in environmental standards not only in the world’s rich countries but in a number of rapidly developing ones as well.

Q.3)The reason for trade unions in countries like the USA to oppose free trade policy is:

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answers the questions that follow.
The case for international trade is essentially the same as that for domestic trade. As Adam Smith convincingly demonstrated in The Wealth of Nations (1776), individuals are better off if they specialize instead of trying to be economically self-sufficient. The resulting international division of labor enables all workers to be more productive. Trade restrictions impose considerable costs on consumers while trade makes it possible for businesses to choose from a wider variety of inputs (materials used to make goods) than would be possible if they relied solely on domestic suppliers. The freedom of firms to choose from an array of inputs improves efficiency, promotes innovation in technology and management, encourages the transfer of technology, and otherwise enhances the growth of productivity. Free trade does not, as many proponents argue, create jobs. Although exports create jobs, imports frequently destroy them so there is no net gain in jobs. But free trade does shift a country’s resources into those goods and services in which its workers are the most productive. Significantly, in the year 2000 export-related jobs in the United States paid 13 percent to 18 percent more than other jobs. The same was true in developing countries: The firms that produced goods for export tended to pay higher wages than those that produced only for domestic markets. By contrast, the world’s poorest citizens tend to produce few or no internationally traded goods or services. The last three decades have seen a significant improvement in living standards for hundreds of millions of people. Without exception, the countries in which living standards have improved most rapidly have substantially reduced trade barriers and increased their exports. Since 1970 Asia’s “four little tigers”—Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore—have been transformed from impoverished areas into some of the world’s richest areas. Many of their citizens now enjoy living standards comparable to those of the United States and Europe. Not coincidentally, these four entities are among the 20 largest traders in the world. The positive impact of international trade on economic growth can be dramatically seen in China. From 1978 to 1998, China’s total imports and exports grew from $21 billion to $324 billion. During this same period, the country’s per capita income increased by more than 8 percent per year, helping raise some 200 million people out of absolute poverty. By contrast, India’s economic growth had been significantly low due to the persistence of high tariffs and restrictions on foreign investment in this time period. Activists in the United States have often criticized free trade on the grounds that businesses are simply attempting to exploit low-wage labor in developing countries. They point to the sweatshop conditions in which goods such as textiles, toys, and sneakers are produced for export to the United States and other wealthy countries. In fact, the most effective way for the world’s richest countries to promote economic development in poor countries is to lower their tariffs and other import restrictions on exports from the world’s poorest countries. Such a free trade policy, along with debt relief, offers these countries their only hope for improving the living standards of their impoverished citizens. Unfortunately, such a policy prescription is strongly opposed by trade unions in the United States and Europe, which fear a loss of jobs for their members. Imports from developing countries represent only 4 percent of total U.S. production. Are such fears justified? Do imports from low-wage countries adversely affect U.S. workers? Since 1993, the United States has significantly lowered its trade barriers and created 20 million new jobs. In 1999 the United States enjoyed its lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. At the same time, the U.S. economy has grown at record levels. Moreover, most U.S. trade is with other rich countries: The country’s biggest trading partners are Canada, Europe, and Japan. All of these countries have wages that are comparable to those of the United States. Nonetheless, trade does change the composition of employment. As trade barriers decline, workers in industries that are no longer competitive on world markets do experience increased unemployment. However, these losses are accompanied by increased employment in those export-oriented industries in which developed countries continue to enjoy a comparative advantage. Indeed, an important purpose of free trade is precisely to move American workers out of unskilled jobs in textiles to high productivity jobs such as in computers and software production. It is short-sighted to focus on the job losses associated with imports while losing sight of the job creation from the increase in exports. The increase in imports from a low-wage country such as Mexico is a good, not a bad thing for the U.S. economy. As Mexico becomes richer, its imports from the United States increase. By increasing employment in export-oriented high-skilled jobs, the export of low-skilled jobs to Mexico raises rather than lowers U.S. living standards. To be sure, this transition is often a painful one. However, the appropriate response is not to maintain trade barriers to keep low-skilled jobs in the United States and thus prevent Mexican workers from raising their living standards. It is rather to provide sufficient funds for worker retraining. The most important reason for the long-term erosion of wages for unskilled workers in the United States in recent decades has not been free trade, but low productivity growth. Productivity growth means that workers are able to produce more goods and services in less time. Higher productivity increases profits and enables employers to offer higher wages. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, many industries in the United States were actually less productive in 1997 than they were in 1988, forcing wages down. Once again, the appropriate policy response to low productivity growth is not to maintain or increase trade barriers but rather to provide the education and job training that will enable workers to qualify for more productive, and thus better-paying, jobs. Foreign workers in developing countries should not pay the price for the shortcomings of U.S. social policies. Trade liberalization has also been criticized on the grounds that it undermines environmental quality, both in the United States and in other countries. This criticism is also misplaced. A nation’s environmental quality is primarily determined by the standard of living of its citizens. To the extent that free trade enhances living standards, it improves environmental quality. The evidence is clear: the lowering of global trade barriers in recent decades has been accompanied by a steady improvement in environmental standards not only in the world’s rich countries but in a number of rapidly developing ones as well.

Q.4)Which of the following is TRUE with respect to the US-Mexico trade?

A. Importing from Mexico is harmful for the US economy
B. As the economy of Mexico matures, it will help strengthen the US economy through increased imports

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answers the questions that follow.
The case for international trade is essentially the same as that for domestic trade. As Adam Smith convincingly demonstrated in The Wealth of Nations (1776), individuals are better off if they specialize instead of trying to be economically self-sufficient. The resulting international division of labor enables all workers to be more productive. Trade restrictions impose considerable costs on consumers while trade makes it possible for businesses to choose from a wider variety of inputs (materials used to make goods) than would be possible if they relied solely on domestic suppliers. The freedom of firms to choose from an array of inputs improves efficiency, promotes innovation in technology and management, encourages the transfer of technology, and otherwise enhances the growth of productivity. Free trade does not, as many proponents argue, create jobs. Although exports create jobs, imports frequently destroy them so there is no net gain in jobs. But free trade does shift a country’s resources into those goods and services in which its workers are the most productive. Significantly, in the year 2000 export-related jobs in the United States paid 13 percent to 18 percent more than other jobs. The same was true in developing countries: The firms that produced goods for export tended to pay higher wages than those that produced only for domestic markets. By contrast, the world’s poorest citizens tend to produce few or no internationally traded goods or services. The last three decades have seen a significant improvement in living standards for hundreds of millions of people. Without exception, the countries in which living standards have improved most rapidly have substantially reduced trade barriers and increased their exports. Since 1970 Asia’s “four little tigers”—Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore—have been transformed from impoverished areas into some of the world’s richest areas. Many of their citizens now enjoy living standards comparable to those of the United States and Europe. Not coincidentally, these four entities are among the 20 largest traders in the world. The positive impact of international trade on economic growth can be dramatically seen in China. From 1978 to 1998, China’s total imports and exports grew from $21 billion to $324 billion. During this same period, the country’s per capita income increased by more than 8 percent per year, helping raise some 200 million people out of absolute poverty. By contrast, India’s economic growth had been significantly low due to the persistence of high tariffs and restrictions on foreign investment in this time period. Activists in the United States have often criticized free trade on the grounds that businesses are simply attempting to exploit low-wage labor in developing countries. They point to the sweatshop conditions in which goods such as textiles, toys, and sneakers are produced for export to the United States and other wealthy countries. In fact, the most effective way for the world’s richest countries to promote economic development in poor countries is to lower their tariffs and other import restrictions on exports from the world’s poorest countries. Such a free trade policy, along with debt relief, offers these countries their only hope for improving the living standards of their impoverished citizens. Unfortunately, such a policy prescription is strongly opposed by trade unions in the United States and Europe, which fear a loss of jobs for their members. Imports from developing countries represent only 4 percent of total U.S. production. Are such fears justified? Do imports from low-wage countries adversely affect U.S. workers? Since 1993, the United States has significantly lowered its trade barriers and created 20 million new jobs. In 1999 the United States enjoyed its lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. At the same time, the U.S. economy has grown at record levels. Moreover, most U.S. trade is with other rich countries: The country’s biggest trading partners are Canada, Europe, and Japan. All of these countries have wages that are comparable to those of the United States. Nonetheless, trade does change the composition of employment. As trade barriers decline, workers in industries that are no longer competitive on world markets do experience increased unemployment. However, these losses are accompanied by increased employment in those export-oriented industries in which developed countries continue to enjoy a comparative advantage. Indeed, an important purpose of free trade is precisely to move American workers out of unskilled jobs in textiles to high productivity jobs such as in computers and software production. It is short-sighted to focus on the job losses associated with imports while losing sight of the job creation from the increase in exports. The increase in imports from a low-wage country such as Mexico is a good, not a bad thing for the U.S. economy. As Mexico becomes richer, its imports from the United States increase. By increasing employment in export-oriented high-skilled jobs, the export of low-skilled jobs to Mexico raises rather than lowers U.S. living standards. To be sure, this transition is often a painful one. However, the appropriate response is not to maintain trade barriers to keep low-skilled jobs in the United States and thus prevent Mexican workers from raising their living standards. It is rather to provide sufficient funds for worker retraining. The most important reason for the long-term erosion of wages for unskilled workers in the United States in recent decades has not been free trade, but low productivity growth. Productivity growth means that workers are able to produce more goods and services in less time. Higher productivity increases profits and enables employers to offer higher wages. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, many industries in the United States were actually less productive in 1997 than they were in 1988, forcing wages down. Once again, the appropriate policy response to low productivity growth is not to maintain or increase trade barriers but rather to provide the education and job training that will enable workers to qualify for more productive, and thus better-paying, jobs. Foreign workers in developing countries should not pay the price for the shortcomings of U.S. social policies. Trade liberalization has also been criticized on the grounds that it undermines environmental quality, both in the United States and in other countries. This criticism is also misplaced. A nation’s environmental quality is primarily determined by the standard of living of its citizens. To the extent that free trade enhances living standards, it improves environmental quality. The evidence is clear: the lowering of global trade barriers in recent decades has been accompanied by a steady improvement in environmental standards not only in the world’s rich countries but in a number of rapidly developing ones as well.

Q.5)The criticism that trade liberalization undermines environmental quality is misplaced because: