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

Both passages use evidence to show that knowledge of the extreme brutality of the sugar trade changed viewpoints about enslavement.

Explanation:

"Sugar Changed the World" is a book written by Marc Aronson and Marina Budhos. It centers on the role of "sugar" and its connection to slavery. Africans were primarily enslaved in order to work in the production of sugar. It became an "engine" that drove the slave trade.

The two passages above showed how knowledge of the extreme brutality of the sugar trade led to the change of viewpoints that people have on enslavement.

The first passage mentioned how most Eastern European farmers could easily be sold as slaves. This was considered brutal. However, the knowledge that "all men are equal" changed the viewpoint of people. People were given hope in the midst of a terrible situation.

The second passage mentioned about Olaudah Equiano's educating his readers regarding the horrors of slave trade. This is considered knowledge that the readers have gained. Boycotts then followed because people started to know how brutal and bad their enslavement condition was.

give it into a zoo or the wilde

explanation:

do you have any answer choices ? ?

explanation: