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 primary purpose of the passage is to
compare the economic role played by southern banks with the economic role played by banks in the rest of the United States during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries
reevaluate a conventional interpretation of the role played by banks in the American economy during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries
present different interpretations of the role played by banks in the American economy during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries
analyze how the increasing number of banks in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries affected the American economy
examine how scholarly opinion regarding the role played by banks in the American economy during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries has changed over time
文章大意:
历史学家对银行在晚18早19世纪起到的作用一直有分歧:
1. 没啥作用:金融机构在经济起色后才出现,且保守得很
2. 挺重要的:银行越来越多 → 信贷更多 → 美国经济发展
3. 例外:南方
题目分析:文章主旨题
文章对比里两种银行有啥作用的观点,且两种观点有时间顺序。
选项分析:
A选项:比较“南方的银行和美国其他地方的银行的经济作用”:文章只在最后提了南方的情况特殊,不是文章主旨。
B选项:重新评估关于 “银行的作用” 的保守看法:文章没有重新评估传统看法,只是提出了不同于传统看法的新看法
C选项:提出两种不同的看法,正确。
D选项:分析越来越多的银行对美国经济有什么影响:第二段提到了越来越多的银行促进了美国发展,但这只是第二个观点的论据,不是主旨。
E选项:调查专家们的关于“银行的作用”的观点如何随着时间变化的:文章是在讲两派的观点(横向),而不是随着时间如何改的(纵向)
A选项时间匹配错了,原文是 1790s and early 1800s,
文章有两种观点;
一定要注意看第一句话!!!!!!!
Topic sentence: Historians remain divided over the role of banks in facilitating economic growth in the United States in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.然后开始详细叙述两派学者的观点
而且如果选e的话 不是同一批historican的view change overtime 而是本来就是2批历史学家
Historians remain divided over the role of banks in facilitating economic growth in the United States in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
主旨题要从原文中找,尤其是第一段的第一句话
题目如果出现了 时间点/线 就要多留意。
错选B
B选项:只是提到学者两种对银行的两种观点,并没有reevaluate
文中的两个观点是共存的,没有先后顺序,也没有好坏比较,所以也就不存在b选项中的reevaluate
也就是说没有作者观点句
A选项:提到南方的银行只是说明这里的人们对于银行的看法,与前面两个对银行的观点并列,说明银行角色;
B选项:只是提到学者两种对银行的两种观点,并没有reevaluate;
D选项:并没有分析银行对于经济发展的影响的每一个方面,只是泛泛的说有很重要的影响;再说这只是文章的一个观点,不足以作为primary purpose;
E选项:并没有examine观点,而是描述两种学者的观点;
文章大意:对于18世纪末19世纪初的银行,一些学者认为在国家经济发展方面作出很小的贡献,因为其{在经济发展后在开始,并且推行}保守的借贷方式,一般借贷给新企业的建立{商业企业},而不是制造业或是交通,因为后者是资金密集型企业,会有更大资金需求而不是劳动力;越来越多的历史学家觉得银行业在1790s对于新建立的国家的经济发展起到很重要的作用,不同于最开始的银行,{只借贷给有很好的关系的企业},国家的一些政策,已经促使银行投资于。。。{更广泛的投资企业}{银行信贷的广泛成为美国经济的主要推动力,已经使大量资金流入工业和交通业};但是对于南方种植园的人们来说,银行不过是一些精英玩弄金钱罢了{认为银行是一些精英的垄断机构}。
B和C的区别在哪里?
文中的两个观点是共存的,没有先后顺序,也没有好坏比较,所以也就不存在b选项中的reevaluate
文中的两个观点是共存的,没有先后顺序,也没有好坏比较,所以也就不存在b选项中的reevaluate
文中的两个观点是共存的,没有先后顺序,也没有好坏比较,所以也就不存在b选项中的reevaluate
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论