Why did Gutenberg's printing pres invented in Europe succeed whereas printing presses invented earlier in Asia did not?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: Why did Gutenberg's printing press in Europe succeed whereas printing presses invented earlier in Asia did not?
Option 1: 'The phonetic alphabet of European languages reduced the number of characters requried leading to economies of scale.' This points to a real factor often cited in historical discussions: European languages largely use alphabetic systems with relatively small sets of symbols, which could have made movable type more practical and cost-effective. The reduced complexity in typesetting could contribute to faster production and lower per-unit costs, supporting broader dissemination.
Option 2: 'Demand was lower in Europe leading to a more lucrative business model.' This claim is counterintuitive. If demand were lower, the incentive for mass production and innovation would be weaker, not stronger. Historical context generally suggests that Europe’s emergence of a printing industry was tied more to demand for books, literacy, and knowledge exchange rather than a premise of lower demand driving lucrativeness.
Option 3: 'The letters in Gutenberg's press were made of wood making them easier to create and work with as compared to the ceramics used in Asia.' There is a factual mismatch here. Gutenberg’s movable type was primarily metal (alloy of lead, tin, and antimony), not wood, and much of East Asian movable-type used ceramic or baked clay components, among other materials. This option misstates the material science of both traditions, making it an inaccurate assertion.
Option 4: 'All of the above' If we accept that Option 2 is not accurate and Option 3 contains a material inaccuracy, selecting all of the above would be unsupported. The combination relies on dubious or incorrect claims about demand and material composition, so this cannot be correct.
Option 5: 'None of the above' This would be chosen if all the preceding statements were incorrect or irrelevant. Given that the first option points to a plausible, historically discussed factor about alphabets reducing typesetting complexity and costs, this option would not be appropriate if the first option contains a valid kernel of truth.
Overall analysis: The core historical argument often involves the practicality of type and the relative complexity of the character set. An alphabet with a limited set of symbols reduces the variety of movable types needed, enabling faster printing and lower costs per page, which supports the observed success of Gutenberg’s approach in Europe. The second option’s claim about demand lacks supporting historical consensus and contradicts the idea that a strong market drove profitability. The third option misstates the materials used in Gutenberg’s types and in East Asian printing traditions, introducing a factual error. The combined assertion in 'All of the above' relies on two incorrect points, making it invalid. The 'None of the above' option would only be appropriate if every other claim were incorrect, which is not the case given the valid point about alphabetic simplification in Option 1. In sum, the analysis favors the explanation that focuses on the lower complexity of European alphabets enabling economies of scale, while discounting the other choices due to factual or logical issues.

COMM 1101 SP2025 (22536) Content Quiz 2

Why did Gutenberg's printing pres invented in Europe succeed whereas printing presses invented earlier in Asia did not?

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

The spread of new ideas during the Renaissance was facilitated by:

What technological innovation allowed for the rise of the Penny Press?

The printing press increased the number of people who could read.

Books were mass produced around:

Roses are [Fill in the blank] , violets are [Fill in the blank]

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单