4) During 2005-2006 Europe imported more than $70 million worth of U.S. long-grain rice. In
2006, the European Union threatened to restrict imports of long-grain rice because traces of
genetically modified rice were found mixed in to commercial supplies. What would NOT be an
effect in the European rice market if U.S. imports were banned?
A) There would be an increase in long-grain rice consumption.
B) There would be an increase in European rice production.
C) The price of long-grain rice would increase.
D) The quantity of long-grain rice imports would decrease.
5) In 2006, the European Union (EU) threatened to ban imports of long-grain rice because traces
of genetically modified rice were found mixed in to commercial supplies. Instead of a ban,
suppose the EU placed a tariff on the import of long-grain rice. Which of the following would be
an outcome of this tariff?
A) The EU would gain tariff revenue.
B) The social loss would decrease.
C) European rice producers would decrease production.
D) The price of long-grain rice in the EU would be higher with a tariff than if rice imports were
completely banned.
6) In 2006, the European Union (EU) threatened to ban imports of long-grain rice because traces
of genetically modified rice were found mixed in to commercial supplies. Instead of a complete
ban, suppose the EU placed a tariff on the import of long-grain rice. Which of the following
would be an outcome of this tariff?
A) The price of long-grain rice in the EU would be lower with a tariff than if rice imports were
completely banned, but higher than with free trade.
B) The price of long-grain rice in the EU would be higher with a tariff than if rice imports were
completely banned.
C) The price of long-grain rice in the EU would be higher with a tariff than if rice imports were
completely banned, but lower than with free trade.
D) The price of long-grain rice in the EU would be lower with a tariff than if rice imports were
completely banned, but lower than with free trade.