Q5 - In the city of Glasgow

[hilarykustoff]

Can someone please explain why E is the correct answer? I chose E, but I don't know exactly why I chose it. Thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

Can someone please explain why E is the correct answer? I chose E, but I don't know exactly why I chose it. Thanks!

This question stem is equivalent to saying which one of the following would not contribute to an explanation of why trade doubled?

We are concerned about the doubling of trade between these years:

1750 - First bank opened in Glasgow, Scotland
1765 - Government regulations first implemented in Scotland

A) Technology in England that started in the early part of the 1700s led to increased trade with Scotland. This helps explain a doubling of trade.
B) Reductions on tariffs in 1752, increased imports to Scotland. This helps.
C) The establishment of banking, so the 1750 action made things more efficient to encourage more trade. This helps.
D) Improvements in roads in Scotland during 1750-1758 led to more trade. This helps.
E) Tells us about government regulations in 1965. This would not help explain the doubling of trade between 1750-1765.

[hilarykustoff]

THANKS!

[reboundz01]

This question stem is equivalent to saying which one of the following would not contribute to an explanation of why trade doubled?

We are concerned about the doubling of trade between these years:

1750 - First bank opened in Glasgow, Scotland
1765 - Government regulations first implemented in Scotland

A) Technology in England that started in the early part of the 1700s led to increased trade with Scotland. This helps explain a doubling of trade.
B) Reductions on tariffs in 1752, increased imports to Scotland. This helps.
C) The establishment of banking, so the 1750 action made things more efficient to encourage more trade. This helps.
D) Improvements in roads in Scotland during 1750-1758 led to more trade. This helps.
E) Tells us about government regulations in 1965. This would not help explain the doubling of trade between 1750-1765.

Looking at the answer in the book for response E, it states "The initial government regulation of Scottish banks stimulated Glasgow's economy." Where do you get 1965 from that response? Based upon your response I can understand why my answer choice was wrong, I just don't understand it based upon what it says in the book.

[timmydoeslsat]

Looking at the answer in the book for response E, it states "The initial government regulation of Scottish banks stimulated Glasgow's economy." Where do you get 1965 from that response? Based upon your response I can understand why my answer choice was wrong, I just don't understand it based upon what it says in the book.

I apologize for the typo. It is 1765. This year is given to us in the stimulus. We are told that government regulations begin that year for the first time in Scotland. So we know that there is no way that the government regulations led to the doubling prior to these rules being in place.

[rinagoldfield]

Timmy’s explanation above is excellent. Nice work!

The stimulus tells us that trade in Glasgow doubled between 1750 and 1765. Why did this occur? We know that four of the answer answer choices will offer possible explanations for this growth. The fifth answer choice_ the one we are looking for_ will NOT help explain why trade doubled during this time.

We also know that two events bookend the period of growth. The first Scottish bank opened in 1750, and the government began regulating banks in 1765.

(A) explicitly gives an explanation for trade growth in Scotland. Booming technology contributed to increased trade between England and Scotland. Keep this answer choice.

(B) suggests that imports increased during the years between 1750 and 1765. Trade includes imports, so this answer choice seems to help as well.

(C) is a little trickier. However, this answer choice basically tells us that exchanging money got a whole lot easier in 1750. Easier transactions can lead to more transactions; think about how easy it is to spend lots of money with a credit card as opposed to with cash. The efficiency of paper money could indeed help explain why trade increased after 1750.

(D) also explicitly offers a reason why trade increased in the 1750s. Keep it.

(E) describes how bank regulation stimulated the economy. Wouldn’t economic stimulation help explain an increase in trade? But check the dates! Bank regulation marks the end of the 15-year period we are examining. Trade growth can’t be retroactively caused, so bank regulation can’t be what we are looking for. (E) is the correct answer.

[crf2132]

I'm sure this is really splitting hairs but I had a question about the information given to us. When it says that trade doubled between 1750 and 1765 does it mean by 1765, as in, by Dec. 31 of 1764 the trade had doubled? I hesitantly chose (E), but liked A and C as well,( A) - "early" seemed like it was maybe too far before 1750 ,I didn't know if it could still affect it, and C- I didn't know if increased efficiency necessarily meant more, maybe it was easier but still the same amount of trade happened. When I got to (E) I was thinking if the regulations were implemented in January of 1765 and maybe trade doubled by say, September of 1765 because of those regulations all in those eight months, this would explain the doubling of trade.

[ohthatpatrick]

Sometimes you have to answer the question based on what you think the test writers were going for, even if the question isn't written perfectly.

I think you COULD try to make the crazy argument you made.

But, mathematically
"x is an integer between 10 and 15" means
x = 11, 12, 13, 14

So the idea of "between" is like bookends, but the bookends themselves are not eligible.

Grammatically, a ", wh-" modifier is a noun modifier that modifies the idea before the comma.

So saying "1765, when regulations first introduced" is modifying 1765.

You're trying to exploit the range of possibility in saying that A YEAR is when something first happened. well, at what point during the year?

On its own, I think you can attack that concept. But the way the entire sentence is structured, we're learning that trade doubled in the period between time X and time Y.

If time Y is when something else happened, we won't care. It will be outside the boundary line of the time period we're considering.

Once you (if you) accept that (E) is ineligible because it's outside the range of time we're considering, then you would certainly have to accept that (A) and (C) could better contribute to an explanation.

The idea you expressed about (C), that efficiency "wouldn't necessarily" lead to more trade, is the wrong mindset for strengthen / weaken / explain.

The correct answer ideas for these tasks are nowhere near bulletproof. They just make something seem more plausible, or introduce doubt, or MAY be part of the explanation.

Hope this helps.