Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorNegative Factual and EXCEPT Questions

Passage:
For over a century, economic historians attributed the rapid industrial expansion of late nineteenth-century Prussia primarily to aggressive state promotion of heavy manufacturing and rail infrastructure. However, recent reassessments by cliometricians suggest that this traditional statist paradigm overstates the direct intervention of the Prussian ministry of trade while neglecting the crucial role of decentralized credit cooperatives (Genossenschaften). Spearheaded by Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch and Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen, these informal financial networks mobilized rural savings and extended short-term microloans to artisan workshops and agricultural smallholders—groups systematically excluded by major joint-stock commercial banks (Kreditbanken), which favored large-scale metallurgical and mining conglomerates.

Critics of the cooperative model argue that these institutions were structurally incapable of capitalizing capital-intensive heavy industries, pointing to their modest reserve requirements and localized governance structures. Yet, this critique misconstrues the mechanism of Prussian growth. By extending credit to secondary suppliers and small-scale machinery purveyors, cooperatives generated a robust domestic supply chain that reduced input costs for heavy industry. Furthermore, the cooperatives' peer-monitoring mechanisms effectively eliminated default risks without requiring extensive collateral, thereby keeping interest rates low during periods of national liquidity squeezes. Thus, while joint-stock banks directly underwrote heavy industry, credit cooperatives sustained the vital economic ecosystem upon which those industries relied, proving that Prussian industrialization was propelled by a dual-track financial system rather than state-directed monolithism alone.

Statement: Based on the passage, the Prussian credit cooperatives (Genossenschaften) sustained industrial growth by directly underwriting capital-intensive metallurgical and mining conglomerates.

Cevap: Cevap

Cevap

False. The passage explicitly states that joint-stock commercial banks (Kreditbanken), rather than credit cooperatives (Genossenschaften), directly underwrote large-scale metallurgical and mining conglomerates.
The statement is false because the passage explicitly refutes direct cooperative underwriting of heavy conglomerates. The author clarifies that major joint-stock commercial banks directly underwrote metallurgical and mining conglomerates, whereas credit cooperatives functioned through short-term microloans to smallholders and secondary suppliers.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the statement to identify the key claim being evaluated.
The statement claims that credit cooperatives directly underwrote capital-intensive metallurgical and mining conglomerates.
Establishing the precise factual assertion is required to locate the corresponding detail in the text.
2
Scan the passage for textual evidence regarding who funded metallurgical and mining conglomerates.
Paragraph 1 explicitly notes that major joint-stock commercial banks (Kreditbanken) 'favored large-scale metallurgical and mining conglomerates,' while credit cooperatives served artisan workshops and agricultural smallholders.
Negative factual analysis requires verifying whether an action is attributed to the subject or to a contrasting entity in the passage.
3
Synthesize Paragraph 2 details regarding how credit cooperatives actually assisted heavy industry.
Paragraph 2 states that cooperatives assisted heavy industry indirectly 'by extending credit to secondary suppliers and small-scale machinery purveyors,' while confirming that 'joint-stock banks directly underwrote heavy industry.'
Direct textual contradiction confirms that the statement falsely attributes the role of joint-stock banks to credit cooperatives.

Anahtar Kavram

Negative Factual Detail & Entity Attribution Trap
Bu soruyu puanla