Question

read the passage from sugar changed the world.
if you walked down beekman street in new york in
the 1750s, you would come to a general store owned
by gerard beekman—his family gave the street its
name. the products on his shelves showed many of
the ways sugar was linking the world. beekman and
merchants like him shipped out bread, corn, salted
bcef, and wood to the caribbean, they brought back
sugar, rum, molasses, limes, cocoa, and ginger.
simple enough, but this trade up and down the
atlantic coast was part of a much larger world
system.
textbooks talk about the triangle trade: ships set out
from europe carrying fabrics, clothes, and simple
manufactured goods to africa, where they sold their
cargoes and bought people. the enslaved people
were shipped across the atlantic to the islands, where
they were sold for sugar. then the ships brought sugar
which evidence best supports the authors claim and
purpose?
○ \simple enough, but this trade up and down the
atlantic coast was part of a much larger world
system.\
○ \beekmans trade, for example, could cut out
europe entirely.\
○ \africans who sold other africans as slaves reacted
on being paid in fabrics from india.\
○ \what could the europeans use to buy indian
cloth?\

Explanation:

To determine the best evidence, we analyze the authors' claim (likely about the global interconnectedness of trade, especially sugar - related). The first option “Simple enough, but this trade up and down the Atlantic coast was part of a much larger world system” directly supports the idea that local trade (Beekman's and similar) was part of a broader global trade system, which aligns with the passage's context about sugar linking the world. The second option focuses on cutting out Europe, not the global system. The third is about African slave traders' reaction, not the trade system's scope. The fourth is a question, not evidence.

Answer:

A. Simple enough, but this trade up and down the Atlantic coast was part of a much larger world system