RAS question
Which of the following correctly explains why the Great Lakes region in the USA became a major iron and steel producing centre?
Correct answer: (C) Access to iron ore from the Mesabi Range (Minnesota), coal from the Appalachians, and water transport via the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes region became a major US iron and steel centre because it combined Mesabi Range iron ore, Appalachian coking coal, and cheap bulk transport through the Great Lakes waterway.
Explanation
The location logic is resource-and-transport based. The Mesabi Iron Range in Minnesota was the main iron-ore source, Appalachian coalfields in West Virginia and Pennsylvania supplied coking coal, and the Great Lakes waterway provided the cheap bulk route for heavy raw materials. U.S. Geological Survey Publications Warehouse records that the Lake Superior region became the leading domestic iron-ore source by 1890, the Mesabi Range became exceptionally productive from 1896, and proximity to raw materials, water transportation and markets centralised the US iron and steel industry in the lower Great Lakes area. That is why Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago and Gary formed the classic steel belt.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) Petroleum and chemical engineers fit a petrochemical location logic, whereas Great Lakes steel depended on iron ore, coking coal and bulk water transport.
- (B) The Great Lakes region is not tropical, and the stated industrial-location factors are raw materials and transport rather than abundant cheap labour.
- (D) Government subsidy and protection do not explain the classic steel-belt pattern as directly as the Mesabi iron ore, Appalachian coal and Great Lakes transport combination.
Concept
This tests the industrial-location concept in World Geography: heavy industries cluster where bulky raw materials, energy inputs, transport routes and markets reduce cost. RAS repeats this because the same logic explains major manufacturing belts in India and abroad.