Question

Passage:
Jürgen Habermas’s influential formulation of the 'public sphere' posits the seventeenth-century English coffeehouse as the crucible of democratic discourse—a space where rational-critical debate superseded social hierarchy. According to this model, the coffeehouse's egalitarian ethos stripped patrons of their aristocratic or plebeian status, uniting them in the disinterested pursuit of truth. However, recent historiography exposes the limitations of this idealized vision. By examining contemporary licensing records and spatial geographies of London, historians have demonstrated that coffeehouses were highly segregated by profession and political affiliation. Lloyd’s coffeehouse, for example, catered exclusively to maritime insurers, effectively functioning as an extension of the Royal Exchange rather than a forum for universal debate. Consequently, it becomes clear that the Habermasian narrative fundamentally mischaracterizes the early modern coffeehouse. Far from serving as an incubator for an inclusive democratic public sphere, the coffeehouse primarily functioned as an instrument of mercantile consolidation, allowing nascent capitalist elites to forge exclusive networks while projecting an illusion of egalitarian access.

Analyze the logical structure of the author's argument. Order the following claims extracted from the text according to their hierarchical role in the argument, beginning with the contextual premise (the established view being challenged), proceeding upward through the chain of evidentiary support (from the most specific factual premise to a broader generalization), and culminating in the author's ultimate main thesis.