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 American’s property, he was not a free man. And so when Thomas Jefferson, with John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, wrote the Declaration of Independence, he insisted that there were certain rights no man could ever lose: life, liberty, and property (which is part of what “pursuit of happiness” meant). But, while Jefferson thought of slavery as an evil that he hoped would eventually disappear, he still believed in his own right to buy and sell slaves. –Sugar Changed the World, Marc Aronson and Marina Budhos 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.