Question

Text 1: Historian Dr. Elena Petrova argues that the 19th-century "Galvanic Engine" was an absolute failure because it could never generate enough torque to move a carriage. She suggests that inventors of this era wasted time and resources on a fundamentally flawed concept, as demonstrated by the consistent failure of experimental prototypes to produce meaningful energy output.
Text 2: While the Galvanic Engine did not propel carriages, calling it a total failure ignores the immediate, practical applications it found in telegraphy and small-scale, stationary workshop tools. The inventors were not aiming to move carriages; they were refining magnetic resistance techniques that, in smaller, hand-operated devices, were highly effective.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the claim made by Petrova in Text 1?
A) The inventors were aware of the engine's limitations in moving carriages but ignored them.
B) The Galvanic Engine was, in fact, a crucial step in the invention of the steam engine.
C) The definition of success for the engine's inventors was different from what Petrova assumes.
D) The engines were actually very efficient at generating high torque for large-scale operations.

Answer 1

C

Text 2 argues that the inventors' aims and criteria for success were different (small-scale telegraphy and workshop tools), so Petrova's carriage-based standard is not the right measure.