The following text is about economic history.
The "great divergence" debate asks why Western Europe, rather than other advanced regions like China, became the first to industrialize. Some scholars emphasize institutional differences: property rights, competitive states, and scientific culture. Others point to contingent factors: coal deposits near population centers, colonial extraction of resources, or New World crops that freed labor. The debate reveals how difficult causal explanation is in history—multiple necessary conditions may exist without any single being sufficient, and similar conditions elsewhere did not produce similar outcomes. Simple monocausal explanations rarely satisfy.
What methodological lesson does the great divergence debate illustrate?
Simple single-factor explanations easily explain complex historical outcomes
Historical causation is complex, with multiple necessary conditions and no single sufficient cause
Institutions are completely irrelevant to economic development
Identical conditions always produce identical historical outcomes
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. "The debate reveals how difficult causal explanation is in history—multiple necessary conditions may exist without any single being sufficient."
- Evidence: Multiple necessary conditions; none sufficient alone.
- Reasoning: Complexity defies simple explanations.
- Conclusion: Historical causation is multi-factorial and complex.
Choice A is incorrect because "simple monocausal explanations rarely satisfy." Choice C is incorrect because institutions are one proposed explanation. Choice D is incorrect because "similar conditions elsewhere did not produce similar outcomes."