Which of the following is most likely to be true of United States trade laws? A. They will eliminate

Which of the following is most likely to be true of United States trade laws? A. They will eliminate the practice of ''dumping' products in the United States. 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. D. The help to one subsidiary is by no means the help to other units in terms of a parent company.

Let’s break down each option with reasoning based on typical characteristics of U.S. trade laws and recent trade policy context.

A. They will eliminate the practice of “dumping” products in the United States.
→ U.S. trade laws (like anti-dumping duties) are designed to counteract dumping, but they don’t eliminate it entirely — they mitigate its effects. This is too absolute to be “most likely true.”

B. They will enable manufacturers in the United States to compete more profitably outside the United States.
→ Some U.S. trade laws aim to open foreign markets or protect U.S. industries, which could help them compete abroad, but many U.S. trade measures are defensive (anti-dumping, countervailing duties, Section 301/232 tariffs). Not consistently aimed at boosting profitability abroad for all manufacturers.

C. They will affect U.S. trade with Canada more negatively than trade with other nations.
→ With USMCA (NAFTA replacement), U.S.-Canada trade is generally favored relative to non-FTA partners. So this is probably not true — trade with Canada is less negatively affected due to the free trade agreement.

D. The help to one subsidiary is by no means the help to other units in terms of a parent company.
→ This seems oddly phrased and appears to reference how trade remedies (like countervailing duties) treat corporate structures: aid to one subsidiary may not be considered aid to entire corporate group under trade law. This touches on a specific principle in trade law (particularity in subsidy analysis), but as a general statement about U.S. trade laws, it’s vague.

Given typical U.S. trade law design:

Option A is too strong.

Option B is possible but not the central, most consistent truth.

Option C is false due to preferential agreements with Canada.

Option D might point to a true nuance — under U.S. countervailing duty law, a subsidy to a specific firm or subsidiary is not automatically attributed to related entities unless there’s a pass-through benefit proven.

In the context of “most likely to be true” in a general multiple-choice trade question, D could be correct if it’s getting at the principle that benefits in trade law are often entity-specific.

However, for clarity: often such questions expect B if focusing on intent of trade laws to help U.S. firms compete globally. But U.S. trade law is not solely for export promotion — much is import protection.

Given common exam patterns and real trade principles, D may be the “most likely true” because it reflects a technical aspect of how U.S. trade remedies are applied (subsidies to one unit don’t automatically benefit all).

Final choice: D (as the safest given its specific legal accuracy, even if awkwardly phrased).

Answer: D