Q1. [1] medium thorough-understanding
Which of the following best explains why industrialists in Victorian Britain were often reluctant to invest in new machinery despite its proven ability to increase output?
(A) New machines required raw materials that were not yet available in Britain.
(B) Abundant cheap labour made mechanisation less cost-effective than employing more workers.
(C) The government had banned the use of steam-powered machines in certain industries.
(D) Workers' unions had legally blocked the introduction of new technology in factories.
- A Machines required raw materials that were difficult to obtain from the colonies.
- B An abundant supply of cheap labour made the high capital cost of machines unnecessary.
- C The government had placed restrictions on the use of steam-powered technology.
- D Guild associations prevented factory owners from replacing skilled workers with machines.
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · 2026-06-26 14:58 · grounding rag
Model Answer
Answer: B
In Victorian Britain, an abundant supply of cheap labour — as poor peasants flooded cities seeking work — kept wages low, making the high capital cost of machines unnecessary and less cost-effective for industrialists.
Source: Hand Labour and Steam Power, chapter 4
---
Explanation
- The textbook directly states: "when there is plenty of labour, wages are low… They did not want to introduce machines that got rid of human labour and required large capital investment."
- Options A, C, and D are not supported by the textbook — no mention of raw material shortages blocking mechanisation, government bans on steam, or guild/union legal blocks in this context.
- The key reasoning: cheap abundant labour = low wage cost → no financial incentive to invest heavily in machines. This is the central argument of the Hand Labour and Steam Power section.