Question:
Read the passage from Sugar Changed the World.
In France, there was no Parliament or Congress; no one expected to be able to protect his rights by voting. But even in the land of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, the people demanded to be heard. In July 1789, Parisians stormed the Bastille, the hated prison where the king locked up anyone he disliked. And in August, the newly defined National Assembly issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights,” it announced to the world. Here it was again, Pierre Lemerre’s phrase, Jefferson’s phrase, the principle Clarkson was fighting for—indeed, he came to France to support the new government. And yet the Declaration also said that "property is an inviolable and sacred right.” So what were slaves? Equal human beings, or goods that belonged to their owners? Human rights versus property rights. That argument goes on today as, for example, we debate how closely to regulate coal mining. Is it best to let owners set rules, which is likely to give all of us cheaper coal, or to have the government set standards, which is more likely to protect workers and the environment? In France, one side argued that slaves must be freed. The other said that to change anything in the sugar islands would invite slave revolts, help France's rivals, and thus hurt the nation.
Which historical events do the authors include to support the claim in this passage? Select two options.
A) Details of Marie Antoinette’s actions at the Bastille
B) Specific details about the modern sugar industry
C) A quotation from the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen
D) A summary of political changes related to human rights in France
E) A description of revolts in the sugar islands
Answer:
The correct answer is C)
Explanation:
The passage depicts the argument between two opposing ideas about the freedom of people and slavery.
The authors cited the declaration of rights of man and the citizen in the 5th and 7th sentences.
If Humans were born free and entitled to their freedom and if they were also entitled to keep their properties, the question was what happens to slaves?
Slaves were properties owned by people.
The challenge with the opposing ideas was that on one side of the argument, there was an inherent assumption that slaves were not humans but properties.
Cheers!
