Social Science (087) — AI-generated practice question

The student's argument is only partially supported by evidence.

Support: Mill-made cloth did destroy India's spinning industry in the 19th century, and cheap Manchester imports collapsed handloom exports. Coarse cloth weavers suffered severely as poor consumers abandoned purchases during famines.

Challenge: Handloom cloth production trebled between 1900 and 1940. Mills could not replicate specialised weaves — Banarasi saris, Madras lungis, and handkerchiefs retained markets. Weavers adopted fly shuttles, raising productivity. Demand for finer varieties from wealthier buyers remained stable even during famines, protecting certain weavers.

Thus, mill-made cloth displaced some segments but could not replace all handloom products, especially fine and specialised textiles.

Source: Ch. 4, Section 5.1 — Small-scale Industries Predominate

---

• The question asks you to evaluate — so you must show both sides (support and challenge) before concluding.
• Key facts examiners expect: handloom output trebling 1900–1940; fly shuttle adoption; mills unable to copy intricate/specialised weaves; coarse vs. fine cloth distinction.
• Don't just list facts — explicitly link each to whether it supports or challenges the argument.
• The word "regardless of which type of cloth" is your clue: the answer must distinguish between coarse and fine/specialised cloth.