T

CAT RC Practice Sets

H
E TM

V
E
R
B
A
L

M
E
N
T
O
R RC #26
 VARC 100: RC#26
Two impressive studies have reexamined Eric Williams’ conclusion that Britain’s abolition of the slave trade in 1. Which one of the following best describes the main idea of
1807 and its emancipation of slavers in its colonies in 1834 were driven primarily by economic rather than the passage?
T humanitarian motives. Blighted by depleted soil, indebtedness, and the inefficiency of coerced labor, these (A) Although they disagree about the degree to which
colonies, according to Williams, had by 1807 become an impediment to British economic progress.
H economic motives influenced Britain’s abolition of slavery,
Drescher and Eltis both concede that moral persuasion by
E Seymour Drescher provides a more balanced view. Rejecting interpretations based either on economic
abolitionists was a significant factor.
interest or the moral vision of abolitionists, Drescher has reconstructed the populist characteristics of British (B) Although both Drescher and Eltis have questioned
abolitionism, which appears to have cut across lines of class, party, and religion. Noting that between 1780 Williams’ analysis of the motivation behind Britain’s abolition
and 1830 antislavery petitions outnumbered those on any other issue, including parliamentary
V reform,Drescher concludes that such support cannot be explained by economic interest alone, especially
of slavery, there is support for part of Williams’ conclusion.
(C) Because he has taken into account the populist
E when much of it came from the unenfranchised masses. Yet, aside from demonstrating that such support characteristics of British abolitionism, Drescher’s explanation
must have resulted at least in part from widespread literacy and a tradition of political activism, Drescher of what motivated Britain’s abolition of slavery is finally more
R does not finally explain how England, a nation deeply divided by class struggles, could mobilize popular persuasive than that of Eltis.
support for antislavery measures proposed by otherwise conservative politicians in the House of Lords and
B approved there with little dissent.
(D) Neither Eltis nor Drescher has succeeded in explaining
why support for Britain’s abolition of slavery appears to have
A cut across lines of party, class, and religion.
David Eltis’ answer to that question actually supports some of Williams’ insights. Eschewing Drescher’ s
L idealization of British traditions of liberty, Eltis points to continuing use of low wages and Draconian vagrancy 2. Which one of the following best states Williams’ view of
laws in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to ensure the industriousness of British workers. Indeed, the primary reason for Britain’s abolition of the slave trade
certain notables even called for the enslavement of unemployed laborers who roamed the British and the emancipation of slaves in its colonies?
M countryside—an acceptance of coerced labor that Eltis attributes to a preindustrial desire to keep labor costs (A) British populism appealed to people of varied classes,
low and exports competitive. By the late eighteenth century, however, a growing home market began to alert parties, and religions.
E capitalists to the importance of “want creation” and to incentives such as higher wages as a means of (B) Both capitalists and workers in Britain accepted the moral
increasing both worker productivity and the number of consumers.
N precepts of abolitionists.
(C) Forced labor in the colonies could not produce enough
T Significantly, it was products grown by slaves, such as sugar, coffee, and tobacco, that stimulated new wants at goods to satisfy British consumers.
all levels of British society and were the forerunners of products intended in modern capitalist societies to (D) The operation of colonies based on forced labor was no
O satisfy what Eltis describes as “nonsubsistence or psychological needs.” Eltis concludes that in economy that
longer economically advantageous.
had begun to rely on voluntary labor to satisfy such needs, forced labor necessarily began to appear both
R inappropriate and counterproductive to employers. Eltis thus concludes that, while Williams may well have
underestimated the economic viability of the British colonies employing forced labor in the early 1800s, his
insight into the economic motives for abolition was partly accurate. British leaders became committed to
colonial labor reform only when they became convinced, for reasons other than those cited by Williams, that
free labor was more beneficial to the imperial economy.
 VARC 100: RC#26
Two impressive studies have reexamined Eric Williams’ conclusion that Britain’s abolition of the slave trade in
1807 and its emancipation of slavers in its colonies in 1834 were driven primarily by economic rather than 3. According to Eltis, low wages and Draconian vagrancy
T humanitarian motives. Blighted by depleted soil, indebtedness, and the inefficiency of coerced labor, these laws in Britain in the seventeenth and eighteenth
colonies, according to Williams, had by 1807 become an impediment to British economic progress. centuries were intended to
H (A) protectlaborers against unscrupulous employment
practices.
E Seymour Drescher provides a more balanced view. Rejecting interpretations based either on economic interest
(B) counter the move to enslave unemployed laborers.
or the moral vision of abolitionists, Drescher has reconstructed the populist characteristics of British
abolitionism, which appears to have cut across lines of class, party, and religion. Noting that between 1780 and (C) ensure a cheap and productive work force.
1830 antislavery petitions outnumbered those on any other issue, including parliamentary reform,Drescher (D) ensure that the work force experienced no
V concludes that such support cannot be explained by economic interest alone, especially when much of it came unemployment.
E from the unenfranchised masses. Yet, aside from demonstrating that such support must have resulted at least
in part from widespread literacy and a tradition of political activism, Drescher does not finally explain how
R England, a nation deeply divided by class struggles, could mobilize popular support for antislavery measures 4. It can be inferred that the author of the passage views
proposed by otherwise conservative politicians in the House of Lords and approved there with little dissent. Drescher’s presentation of British traditions concerning
B liberty as
(A) accurately stated.
A David Eltis’ answer to that question actually supports some of Williams’ insights. Eschewing Drescher’ s
(B) somewhat unrealistic.
idealization of British traditions of liberty, Eltis points to continuing use of low wages and Draconian vagrancy
L laws in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to ensure the industriousness of British workers. Indeed, (C) carefully researched.
certain notables even called for the enslavement of unemployed laborers who roamed the British countryside— (D) unnecessarily tentative.
an acceptance of coerced labor that Eltis attributes to a preindustrial desire to keep labor costs low and exports
M competitive. By the late eighteenth century, however, a growing home market began to alert capitalists to the
importance of “want creation” and to incentives such as higher wages as a means of increasing both worker
E productivity and the number of consumers.
N Significantly, it was products grown by slaves, such as sugar, coffee, and tobacco, that stimulated new wants at
T all levels of British society and were the forerunners of products intended in modern capitalist societies to
satisfy what Eltis describes as “nonsubsistence or psychological needs.” Eltis concludes that in economy that
O had begun to rely on voluntary labor to satisfy such needs, forced labor necessarily began to appear both
inappropriate and counterproductive to employers. Eltis thus concludes that, while Williams may well have
R underestimated the economic viability of the British colonies employing forced labor in the early 1800s, his
insight into the economic motives for abolition was partly accurate. British leaders became committed to
colonial labor reform only when they became convinced, for reasons other than those cited by Williams, that
free labor was more beneficial to the imperial economy.
 VARC 100: RC#26
Two impressive studies have reexamined Eric Williams’ conclusion that Britain’s abolition of the slave trade in
1807 and its emancipation of slavers in its colonies in 1834 were driven primarily by economic rather than 5. The information in the passage suggests that Eltis and
T humanitarian motives. Blighted by depleted soil, indebtedness, and the inefficiency of coerced labor, these Drescher agree that
colonies, according to Williams, had by 1807 become an impediment to British economic progress. (A) people of all classes in Britain supported the abolition
H of slavery.
E Seymour Drescher provides a more balanced view. Rejecting interpretations based either on economic interest (B) the motives behind Britain’s abolition of slavery were
primarily economic.
or the moral vision of abolitionists, Drescher has reconstructed the populist characteristics of British
abolitionism, which appears to have cut across lines of class, party, and religion. Noting that between 1780 and (C) the moral vision of abolitionists played a vital part in
1830 antislavery petitions outnumbered those on any other issue, including parliamentary reform,Drescher Britain’s abolition of slavery.
V concludes that such support cannot be explained by economic interest alone, especially when much of it came (D) British traditions of liberty have been idealized by
E from the unenfranchised masses. Yet, aside from demonstrating that such support must have resulted at least historians.
in part from widespread literacy and a tradition of political activism, Drescher does not finally explain how
R England, a nation deeply divided by class struggles, could mobilize popular support for antislavery measures
proposed by otherwise conservative politicians in the House of Lords and approved there with little dissent.
B
A David Eltis’ answer to that question actually supports some of Williams’ insights. Eschewing Drescher’ s
idealization of British traditions of liberty, Eltis points to continuing use of low wages and Draconian vagrancy
L laws in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to ensure the industriousness of British workers. Indeed,
certain notables even called for the enslavement of unemployed laborers who roamed the British
countryside—an acceptance of coerced labor that Eltis attributes to a preindustrial desire to keep labor costs
M low and exports competitive. By the late eighteenth century, however, a growing home market began to alert
capitalists to the importance of “want creation” and to incentives such as higher wages as a means of
E increasing both worker productivity and the number of consumers.
N Significantly, it was products grown by slaves, such as sugar, coffee, and tobacco, that stimulated new wants at
T all levels of British society and were the forerunners of products intended in modern capitalist societies to
satisfy what Eltis describes as “nonsubsistence or psychological needs.” Eltis concludes that in economy that
O had begun to rely on voluntary labor to satisfy such needs, forced labor necessarily began to appear both
inappropriate and counterproductive to employers. Eltis thus concludes that, while Williams may well have
R underestimated the economic viability of the British colonies employing forced labor in the early 1800s, his
insight into the economic motives for abolition was partly accurate. British leaders became committed to
colonial labor reform only when they became convinced, for reasons other than those cited by Williams, that
free labor was more beneficial to the imperial economy.