Beat The GMAT a GMAT & MBA community

For many years, historians thought
that the development of capitalism had not
faced serious challenges in the United
Line States. Writing in the early twentieth cen-
(5) tury, Progressive historians sympathized
with the battles waged by farmers and
small producers against large capitalists
in the late nineteenth century, but they did
not question the widespread acceptance
(10) of laissez-faire (unregulated) capitalism
throughout American history. Similarly,
Louis Hartz, who sometimes disagreed
with the Progressives, argued that Americans
accepted laissez-faire capitalism
(15) without challenge because they lacked
a feudal, precapitalist past. Recently,
however, some scholars have argued
that even though laissez-faire became
the prevailing ethos in nineteen-century
(20) America, it was not accepted without
struggle. Laissez-faire capitalism, they
suggest, clashed with existing religious
and communitarian norms that imposed
moral constraints on acquisitiveness to
(25) protect the weak from the predatory, the
strong from corruption, and the entire culture
from materialist excess. Buttressed
by mercantilist notions that government
should be both regulator and promoter
(30) of economic activity, these norms persisted
long after the American Revolution
helped unleash the economic forces that
produced capitalism. These scholars
argue that even in the late nineteenth
(35) century, with the government’s role in
the economy considerably diminished,
laissez-faire had not triumphed completely.
Hard times continued to revive
popular demands for regulating busi-
(40) ness and softening the harsh edges of
laissez-faire capitalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q1:
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. reveal the underlying similarities of certain arguments regarding the development
of capitalism in the United States
B. synthesize two competing arguments regarding the development of capitalism in
the United States
C. defend an established argument regarding the development of capitalism in the
United States
D. summarize a scholarly refutation of an argument regarding the development of
capitalism in the United States
E. discuss a new methodology for the study of the development of capitalism in the
United States

D

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2:
According to the passage, the Progressive historians mentioned in line 5 and the scholars
mentioned in line 17 disagree with regard to which of the following?
A. Whether laissez-faire became the predominant ethos in the nineteenth-century
United States
B. Whether moral restraints on acquisitiveness were necessary in the nineteencentury
United States
C. The economic utility of mercantilist notions of government
D. The nature of the historical conditions necessary for the development of laissezfaire
capitalism in the nineteen-century United States
E. The existence of significant opposition to the development of laissez-faire
capitalism in the nineteen-century United States

E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q3:
The passage suggests that the scholars mentioned in line 17 would agree with which of
the following statements regarding the “norms” mentioned in line 23?
A. They provided a primary source of opposition to the development of laissez-faire
capitalism in the United States in the nineteenth century.
B. Their appeal was undermined by difficult economic times in the United States at
the end of the nineteenth century.
C. They disappeared in the United States in the late nineteenth century because of
the triumph of laissez-faire capitalism.
D. They facilitated the successful implementation of mercantilist notions of
government in the United States in the nineteenth-century.
E. They are now recognized by historians as having been an important part of the
ideology of the American Revolution.

A


Can anyone help me with Q2&Q3?

My question with Q2 is that I think Progressive historians just did not question the laissez-faire, but Q2 says that Progressive historians disagreed the existance of such challenge, I think the passage does not mention that.

My question with Q3 is that I cannot even understand which side the "norms" was standing. What the earth does the passage says about "norms" Anyone can help me paraphrase those sentense about the "norms"?