Soru

Zorluk: ZorStrengthening or Weakening Author Assertions

Passage:
In early nineteenth-century New England, country banks frequently issued banknotes that circulated in Boston at a discount due to the transaction costs of redeeming them for specie (gold or silver coin) at distant rural locations. In 1824, Boston’s Suffolk Bank established a centralized system requiring participating country banks to maintain permanent specie deposits in Boston to redeem their notes at par value. Economic historians have long debated whether Suffolk’s policy was primarily a predatory effort to eliminate rural competitors or an institutional innovation aimed at stabilizing regional currency. Dr. Elena Rostova contends that the system functioned chiefly as a benevolent private clearinghouse designed to reduce currency transaction costs and stabilize monetary circulation. Rostova emphasizes that by guaranteeing par redemption, Suffolk reduced information asymmetry among merchants, thereby lowering regional interest rates and spurring interstate trade.

However, critics point out that Suffolk routinely charged high maintenance fees to country banks that lacked political leverage while exempting major metropolitan institutions. Moreover, rural bank failures actually increased during the initial five years of Suffolk’s expansion, as country banks struggled to maintain required specie reserves during seasonal agricultural downturns. Nevertheless, Rostova maintains that the eventual homogenization of banknotes in New England created a unified monetary zone decades before the implementation of federal banking regulations.

Question:
Which of the following discovery findings, if true, would most seriously weaken Dr. Rostova's assertion regarding the primary function of the Suffolk Bank system?

  1. Internal ledgers reveal that Suffolk Bank explicitly used its reserve requirements to force rural banks into insolvency so Boston directors could acquire their assets at depressed prices.Cevap
  2. B
    Merchants in Boston reported a significant decrease in the transaction costs associated with evaluating rural banknotes within two years of the system's establishment.
  3. C
    Federal banking regulations enacted decades later adopted several structural features of the Suffolk Bank's centralized clearinghouse mechanism.
  4. D
    Country banks that maintained higher specie reserves than required by Suffolk were significantly less vulnerable to seasonal agricultural downturns.
  5. E
    Critics of the Suffolk Bank in the 1820s frequently published pamphlets accusing Boston financiers of seeking an unfair advantage over rural agricultural interests.

Cevap

The statement showing internal ledgers that document Suffolk Bank's explicit strategy to force rural banks into insolvency to acquire their assets at depressed prices most seriously weakens the author's assertion.
The correct option presents explicit historical evidence that the Suffolk Bank's actual strategy was predatory asset acquisition through intentional rural insolvencies. This directly contradicts Dr. Rostova's central assertion that the primary function of the Suffolk system was benevolent monetary stabilization and transaction cost reduction.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the author's core assertion being targeted.
Dr. Rostova contends that the Suffolk Bank system functioned chiefly as a benevolent clearinghouse aimed at reducing transaction costs and stabilizing regional monetary circulation.
To weaken an assertion, one must first isolate the precise claim and underlying assumption made by the researcher.
2
Evaluate potential counter-evidence that contradicts the primary intent or outcome of the claim.
Evidence demonstrating that Suffolk Bank deliberately engineered reserve requirements as a predatory mechanism to bankrupt rural competitors and acquire their assets directly refutes the 'benevolent stabilization' hypothesis.
Showing that the true primary objective was anticompetitive elimination of rural rivals shatters the assertion of currency stabilization as the primary function.
3
Eliminate distractors that strengthen the claim, rely on external extrapolation, or restate known critical opinions without providing factual counter-evidence.
Option A provides direct empirical evidence of predatory intent, whereas other options either support the claim, introduce irrelevant long-term regulatory facts, or restate already acknowledged criticisms.
GMAT weakening questions require finding the choice that most directly undermines the logical foundation of the author's argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Weakening Reading Comprehension Claims via Direct Counter-Evidence of Intent and Function
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Bu soruyu puanla