Historians remain divided over the role of banks in facilitating economic growth in the United States in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Some scholars contend that banks played a minor role in the nation's growing economy. Financial institutions, they argue, appeared only after the economy had begun to develop, and once organized, followed conservative lending practices, providing aid to established commercial enterprises but shunning those, such as manufacturing and transportation projects, that were more uncertain and capital-intensive (i.e., requiring greater expenditures in the form of capital than in labor).
A growing number of historians argue, in contrast, that banks were crucial in transforming the early national economy. When state legislatures began granting more bank charters in the 1790s and early 1800s, the supply of credit rose accordingly. Unlike the earliest banks, which had primarily provided short-term loans to well-connected merchants, the banks of the early nineteenth century issued credit widely. As Paul Gilje asserts, the expansion and democratization of credit in the early nineteenth century became the driving force of the American economy, as banks began furnishing large amounts of capital to transportation and industrial enterprises. The exception, such historians argue, was in the South; here, the overwhelmingly agrarian nature of the economy generated outright opposition to banks, which were seen as monopolistic institutions controlled by an elite group of planters.
The passage suggests that Paul Gilje would be most likely to agree with which of the following claims about the lending practices of the "earliest banks" (see the highlighted text)?
These lending practices were unlikely to generate substantial profits for banks.
These lending practices only benefited a narrow sector of the economy.
The restrictive nature of these lending practices generated significant opposition outside of the South.
The restrictive nature of these lending practices forced state legislatures to begin granting more bank charters by the early nineteenth century.
These lending practices were likely to be criticized by economic elites as being overly restrictive.
题目分析:
文章推断题:关于“最早的银行”,PG最有可能同意以下哪个观点?
原文:(不像)最早的银行,主要是给好商家提供短期贷款……PG认为,信贷的普及和民主化成为美国经济发展的动力,因为银行开始资助交通业和工业。
选项分析:
A选项:早期银行的借贷业务不会带来可观的收入:没有提到能带来多少收入。
B选项:正确。这些借贷服务只针对一小部分:与文中的well-connectedmerchants对应,表明了早期银行服务的受众很小。
C选项:此借贷服务的局限性导致了南方地区之外产生了反对者:与地域无关。
D选项:此局限性导致立法者发放了更多银行执照:无中生有的因果关系。
E选项:此借贷服务被经济学精英批评,因为太有局限性:文章没提经济学精英对其态度如何。
这道题很奇怪,因为高亮的部分在 as Paul Gilje assert前面
应该从PG's assertion中推理,他对earlist bank 的看法
从最后一句controlled by an elite group of people知 the earlist bank only benefit a goup of people
B选项:正确。这些借贷服务只针对一小部分:与文中的well-connectedmerchants对应,表明了早期银行服务的受众很小。
provided short-term loans to well-connected merchants说明是只针对一小部分的sector
a narrow sector of the economy的理解不够
回过头来看,第三题和第四题的逻辑是一致的,第三题对了或者读懂了,第四题也会对。
primarily provided short-term loans to well-connected merchants
A选项:这些借贷实践赚不赚钱不在讨论范围内;
B选项:这些借贷实践只有利于一小部分经济的领域;
C选项:反对早期银行,文章没提到
D选项:没根据,关于早起银行的限制性与19世纪早期对银行授予更多宪章之间的因果关系;
E选项:没提同时也推不出来这种结论
该段总的观点是银行对国家重要:A growing number of historians argue, in contrast, that banks were crucial in transforming the early national economy.(但针对的是1790S-1800S这个时期),文中unlike earliest banks其实是举了反例,说明这个时期earliest banks只能让很少一部分行业的经济受惠!
issued credit widely