Industry and Economy - 3 views
-
THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: CHANGE AND OPPORTUNITY IN ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, c1750-c1830
-
Katy Field on 20 Feb 13Remember, the debate resolution is: "The technological innovations of the information & communication revolution (1990s - present) have improved the economy more than the technological innovations of the industrial revolution (1800s) did." Stay focused on the actions that must cause an impact (the industrial revolution or the ICT revolution), and the value premise that your evidence must link back to: economic improvement.
-
-
Although one can find the origins of industrialisation in earlier centuries and although the changes were at a very incomplete stage by the mid nineteenth century, an unprecedented shift was underway which was to change the nature of human society for ever.
-
This quote is not useful for two reasons: first, it only provides a claim (the IR caused longterm changes to human society) , there is no evidence provided to substantiate that claim. Second, the claim itself isn't directly relevant because it simply says that the was a change, it doesn't present any reason to believe that these changes were improvements (which is the value premise of the debate).
-
-
The industrial revolution certainly saw some dramatic changes in the economy and society of Britain. There was a huge increase in the numbers of people employed in industrial manufacturing, making goods of all kinds, but especially textiles, iron goods, metal wares and pottery, for both overseas and domestic markets.
-
This quote provides EVIDENCE because it states specific facts like the one about increasing number of people employed, and the listing of types of goods being produced. It's RELEVANT to the debate because the facts are about an IMPACT that the industrial revolution had on the economy (# of employed people, types of goods produced), and they LINK back to the value premise (improvement) because you could argue that the economy was improving because the increased number of employed people would have more money in their pockets with which to buy things and continue the cycle of growth. A REBUTTAL might be that the evidence just says that there was a growth in the number of people employed in industrial manufacturing. This does not explicitly say that more people were working overall--they could just be switching the type of job they have, and we don't know that they're getting paid more. An ANSWER to that rebuttal could be that even though the article does not specify the growth in citizens' incomes because of the new type of employment, it is safe to say that people's economic lives were better somehow because they chose to go into these jobs, they were not physically forced, so it must indicate an improvement in their economic lives even though we may not know exactly what kind of improvement that might be.
-
- ...3 more annotations...