Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorStrengthening or Weakening Author Assertions

Passage:
In sixteenth-century Mediterranean maritime commerce, Venetian merchant syndicates increasingly transitioned from bottomry loans—where lenders assumed total loss risk from shipwrecks in exchange for high interest rates—to early mutual marine insurance contracts known as collegantia. Historical sociologists have traditionally asserted that this institutional transition was primarily driven by a desire to mitigate financial ruin from unpredictable storm losses. However, economic historian Elena Rossi argues that the shift was predominantly a strategic response to opportunistic piracy and captain defection in the Levant. Rossi notes that bottomry loans created severe moral hazard: ship captains facing minor pirate threats had a financial incentive to feign total loss or collude with privateers to claim high insurance payouts. Under collegantia contracts, however, captain compensation was strictly tied to verified net profit at the destination port, aligning the captain's personal financial interest with the physical defense of the cargo. Consequently, Rossi asserts that the institutional adoption of collegantia was motivated by reducing captain-side moral hazard rather than distributing exogenous environmental risks.

Statement: If historical archival records reveal that Venetian merchant syndicates experienced identical rates of financial loss attributable to storm damage both before and after adopting collegantia contracts, this finding directly weakens Rossi's assertion.

Cevap: Cevap

Cevap

The statement is False.
The statement asserts that finding identical storm loss rates before and after the contract transition weakens Rossi's position. This is false. Rossi's core thesis is that collegantia was adopted to address captain moral hazard rather than storm risks. Evidence demonstrating that storm loss rates were unchanged confirms that collegantia did not alter storm risk exposure, which directly supports Rossi's assertion that storm risk reduction was not the motivating factor behind the institutional change.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify Rossi's central assertion and the opposing view
Traditional view: collegantia was adopted to mitigate storm losses. Rossi's view: collegantia was adopted to reduce captain moral hazard (collusion/piracy), NOT to mitigate storm losses.
Evaluating whether new evidence weakens an assertion requires clearly defining what the author claims and what the author rejects.
2
Analyze the impact of the hypothetical finding
The finding shows that financial losses from storm damage were identical before and after adopting collegantia.
This establishes that collegantia provided no tangible reduction in storm-related financial damage.
3
Evaluate whether the finding weakens Rossi's assertion
Because Rossi explicitly claims that storm loss mitigation was NOT the primary motive for adopting collegantia, showing that collegantia failed to alter storm loss rates reinforces Rossi's claim that storm protection was not the functional benefit driving the contract's adoption. Therefore, the finding does not weaken her argument.
Since the evidence aligns with Rossi's rejection of the traditional storm-mitigation hypothesis, asserting that the finding weakens her claim is incorrect.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening or Weakening Author Assertions in Reading Comprehension
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Strengthening or Weakening Author Assertions

Bu konudan daha fazla soru