Text 1: Historian Park argues that the Marshall Plan of 1948 was the primary engine of post-WWII European recovery. American aid rebuilt devastated infrastructure, prevented currency collapse, and offered a model of integrated economic planning that shaped Western Europe for a generation.
Text 2: Historian Singh agrees that the Marshall Plan helped but argues that European recovery was already underway by 1948. Industrial output had been rising for two years; the plan's funds, while valuable politically, were modest compared to internal European investment. The Marshall Plan was a useful boost, Singh contends, not the primary engine.
Based on the texts, how would Singh (Text 2) most likely respond to Park's claim?
- A
He would agree that without the Marshall Plan no recovery would have occurred.
- B
He would deny that the Marshall Plan provided any aid.
- Ccheck_circle
He would accept the plan's contribution while disputing its status as the primary cause of recovery.
- D
He would argue that the Marshall Plan was the only factor.
Explanation
Singh grants the plan's contribution but rejects its claim as primary cause. C captures his position. A and D overstate; B contradicts him.