Line	Arboria is floundering in the global marketplace,
	incurring devastating losses in market position and
	profits. The problem is not Arboria's products, but
	Arboria's trade policy. Arboria faces the prospect
(5)	of continuing economic loss until Arborian business
	and political leaders recognize the fundamental
	differences between Arborian and foreign economic
	systems. Today the key trade issue is not free trade
	versus protectionism but diminishing trade versus
(10)	expanding trade.
	Arboria is operating with an obsolete trade policy,
	an artifact of the mid-1940s when Arboria and
	Whorfland dominated the global economy, tariffs
	were the principal obstacle to trade, and Arborian
(15)	supremacy was uncontested in virtually all industries.
	In the intervening decades, economic circumstances
	have shifted radically. Arborian trade policy has not.
	Today, Arboria's trade policy seems paralyzed
	by the relentless conflict between proponents of
(20)	“free” and “fair” trade. The free traders argue that
	Arborian markets should be open, and the movement
	of goods and services across national borders
	unrestrained. The fair traders assert that access to
	Arborian markets should be restricted until Arborian
(25)	businesses are granted equal access to foreign
	markets. They contend that free trade is impossible
	while other nations erect barriers to Arborian exports.
	Both are correct: fair trade requires equal access
	and equal access leads to free trade. But both sides
(30)	base their positions on the same two outdated
	premises:
	1. Global commerce is conducted under the terms of
	the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
	and dominated by Arboria and similar economic
(35)	systems abroad.
	2. Multilateral negotiations are the most effective way
	to resolve pressing trade issues.
	Both assumptions are wrong. The 40-year-old GATT
	now covers less than 7 percent of global commerce.
(40)	World trade is no longer dominated by the free-
	trade economies; nearly 75 percent is conducted
	by economic systems operating with principles at
	odds with those of Arboria. Forging a multilateral
	trade policy consensus among so many diverse
(45)	economic systems has become virtually impossible.
	And while multilateral talks drag on, Arboria misses
	opportunities for trade expansion.

(This passage was adapted from an article written in 1990.)

    Research data indicate that there is a great deal of poverty in the United States among singleparent families headed by women. This problem could result from the fact that women's wages are only 60 percent of men's. Some economists believe that rigorous enforcement of existing equal pay laws would substantially decrease this wage inequity. But equal pay laws are ineffectual when women and men are concentrated in different occupations because such laws require only that women and men doing the same jobs be paid the same. Since gender concentration exists (for example, 80 percent of clerical workers are women), other economists argue that a comparable worth standard, which would mandate that women and men in any jobs that require comparable training and responsibility be paid the same, should be applied instead. But some policy analysts assert that, although comparable worth would virtually equalize male and female wages, many singleparent families headed by women would remain in poverty because many men earn wages that are below the poverty line. These policy analysts believe that the problem is not caused primarily by wage inequity but rather by low wages coupled with single parenthood, regardless of sex. As a solution, they challenge the government's assumption that a family's income should depend primarily on wages and urge the government to provide generous wage supplements (child and housing allowances) to single parents whose wages are low.

    A key decision required of advertising managers is whether a "hard-sell" or "soft-sell" strategy is appropriate for a specific target market. The hard-sell approach involves the use of direct, forceful claims regarding the benefits of the advertised brand over competitors' offerings. In contrast, the soft-sell approach involves the use of advertising claims that imply superiority more subtly

    One positive aspect of the hard-sell approach is its use of very simple and straightforward product claims presented claims presented as explicit conclusions, with little room for confusion regarding the advertiser's message. However, some consumers may resent being told what to believe and some may distrust the message. Resentment and distrust often lead to counterargumentation and to boomerang effects where consumers come to believe conclusions diametrically opposed to conclusions endorsed in adverrising claims, By contrast, the risk of boomerang erects is greatly reduced with soft-sell approaches. One way to implement the soft-sell approach is to provide information that implies the main conclusions the advertiser wants the consumer to draw, but leave the conclusions themselves unstated. Because consumers are invited to make up their own minds, implicit conclusions reduce the risk of resentment ,distrust, and counter argumentation.

    Recent research on consumer memory and judgment suggests another advantage of implicit conclusions. Beliefs or conclusions that are self-generated are more accessible from memory than beliefs from conclusions provided explicitly by other individuals, and thus have a greater impact on judgment and decision making. Moreover, self-generated beliefs are often perceived as more accurate and valid than the beliefs of others, because other individuals may be perceived as less less knowledgeable, or may be perceived as manipulative or deliberately misleading. Despite these advantages, implicit conclusions may mot always be more effective than explicit Conclusions. One risk is that some consumers may fail to draw their own conclusions and thus miss the point of the message. .Inferential activity is likely only when consumers are motivated and able to engage in effortful cognitive processes. Another risk is that some conSummers may draw conclusions Other than the one intended ,Even if inferential activity is likely there is no guarantee that consumers will follow the path provided by the advertiser. Finally, a third risk is that consumers may infer the intended conclusion but question the validity of their inference.