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.\
○ \beekman’s 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 solve this, we analyze each option:

Option 1:

"Simple enough, but this trade up and down the Atlantic coast was part of a much larger world system."
This option explains that the local trade (Beekman’s) was part of a broader global system (the Triangle Trade, as the passage describes). It directly supports the authors’ claim about how sugar trade linked the world, aligning with their purpose of showing global interconnectedness.

Option 2:

"Beekman’s trade, for example, could cut out Europe entirely."
The passage emphasizes the global system (including Europe in the Triangle Trade), so this contradicts the idea of a “larger world system” involving Europe. Eliminate.

Option 3:

"Africans who sold other Africans as slaves reacted on being paid in fabrics from India."
This focuses on a specific detail (slave sellers’ reaction to payment) and does not support the broader claim about the trade being part of a large global system. Eliminate.

Option 4:

"What could the Europeans use to buy Indian cloth?"
This is a question about European trade methods, not evidence for the global trade system. Eliminate.

The authors’ claim/purpose is about how sugar trade (and related commerce) was part of a larger global system. The first option directly connects local trade (Beekman’s) to this broader system, while others either contradict, focus on details, or are irrelevant.

Answer:

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