Question

which statement best explains how the authors develop their claim across the two passages?
both passages show the historical details that led the abolitionists to support the american revolution.
both passages develop the idea that boycotting could bring attention to people who were treated unfairly, including enslaved people.
both passages support the claim that intelligent people will overcome harmful governments.
both passages show that there was little connection between the sugar trade and the rise of slavery in north america.
as news of the toughened sugar act reached the north american colonists, they reacted with outrage—to them, this move by parliament was precisely \taxation without representation.\ in boston, the general assembly responded by saying, \if taxes are laid upon us... without ever having a legal representative where they are laid, are we not reduced from the character of free subjects to the miserable status of tributary slaves?\ soon assemblies in new york and north carolina joined the chorus, protesting against the sugar act.
when parliament listened to the sugar lords, the colonists felt helpless, as if they were slaves. if england could take an americans property, he

Explanation:

The first passage shows colonists reacting to the Sugar Act (a form of boycott - related protest as they oppose the tax). The second passage (though only part is shown, but from the first passage's context of protest) - boycotting (here through protest against the Sugar Act) is a way to bring attention to unfair treatment (taxation without representation which is a form of unfairness). The other options:

• The first option about abolitionists supporting the American Revolution is not shown in the given passage (passage is about colonists reacting to Sugar Act, not abolitionists).
• The third option about intelligent people overcoming harmful governments is too broad - the passage is more about a specific form of protest (related to boycott - like reaction) and unfairness.
• The fourth option is incorrect as the Sugar Act was related to trade (sugar) and colonists saw it as a form of unfairness (akin to slavery in their view as they mention "miserable status of Tributary Slaves"), so there was a connection (implied) between trade (sugar) and the feeling of being treated like slaves (though not full - scale slavery in the sense of the slave trade, but the colonists use the'slave' analogy).

Answer:

Both passages develop the idea that boycotting could bring attention to people who were treated unfairly, including enslaved people.