Question

How was the master and apprentice relationship different from the employer and employee relationship?

A. Master craftsmen were not
concerned about training apprentices; employers hired only highly skilled employees.

B. Master craftsmen lived and worked closely with apprentices; employers were more impersonal with their employees.

C. Master craftsmen were from a higher social class than apprentices; employers were of the same social class as employees.

D. Master craftsmen did not place obligations on apprentices; employers demanded commitments from employees.

Answer 1

B

Step-by-step explanation:

B. Master craftsmen lived and worked closely with apprentices; employers were more impersonal with their employees.

The master and apprentice relationship in traditional craft guilds was based on a system of learning in which the master was responsible for teaching the craft to the apprentice. The master would live and work closely with the apprentice, providing guidance, instruction, and oversight as the apprentice learned the craft. This relationship was often close and personal, with the master taking on a paternalistic role towards the apprentice.

In contrast, the employer and employee relationship is typically more impersonal, with the employer hiring employees based on their qualifications and job skills. Employers generally do not have the same level of personal involvement with their employees as masters did with their apprentices. The employer-employee relationship is usually based on a contractual agreement that defines the terms and conditions of employment, including compensation, working hours, and benefits.

Therefore, the master and apprentice relationship was different from the employer and employee relationship in terms of the level of personal involvement and the nature of the learning process involved.