1. Passage 1 is adapted from a 1774 speech to Congress by
Joseph Galloway. Passage 2 is adapted from Alexander
Hamilton, “A Full Vindication of the Measures of the
Congress.” Both were written in 1774. As the British Imposed
a series of taxes on the American colonists, tensions grew
between those who wished to remain loyal to Britain and
those who wanted greater independence.

Passage 1

The discovery of the Colonies was made under
a commission granted by the supreme authority of the
British State, that they have been settled under that
authority, and therefore are truly the property of that
5 State. Parliamentary jurisdiction has been constantly
exercised over them from their first settlement; its
executive authority has ever run through all their
inferior political systems: the Colonists have ever
sworn allegiance to the British State, and have been
10 considered, both by the State and by themselves, as
subjects of the British Government. Protection and
allegiance are reciprocal duties; the one cannot exist
without the other. The Colonies cannot claim the
protection of Britain upon any principle of reason or
15 law, while they deny its supreme authority. Upon this
ground the authority of Parliament stands too firm to be
shaken by any arguments whatever; and therefore to
deny that authority, and at the same time to declare
their incapacity to be represented, amounts to a full
20 and explicit declaration of independence. . .
As to the tax, it is neither unjust or oppressive, 1t
being rather a relief than a burthen*; but it is want of
constitutional principle in the authority that passed it,
which is the ground for complaint. This, and this only,
25 is the source of American grievances …
If we do not approve of a representation in
Parliament, let us ask for a participation in the freedom
and power of the English constitution in some other
mode of incorporation ….I therefore beseech you, by the
30 respect you are bound to pay to the instructions of your
constituents, by the regard you have for the honor and
safety of your country, and as you wish to avoid a war
with Great-Britain, which must terminate, at all events
in the ruin of America, not to rely on a denial of the
35 authority of Parliament, a refusal to be represented …
because whatever protestations, in that case, may be
made to the contrary, it will prove to the world that we
intend to throw off our allegiance to the State, and to
involve the two countries in all the horrors of a civil 40 war.
*a burden

Passage 2

That Americans are entitled to freedom, is
incontrovertible upon every rational principle. All
men have one common original: they participate in one
common nature, and consequently have one common
45 right. No reason can be assigned why one man
should exercise any power, or preeminence over his
fellow-creatures more than another; unless they have
voluntarily veiled him with it. Since then, Americans
have not by any act of theirs empowered the British
50 Parliament to make laws for them, it follows they can
have no just authority to do it. Besides the clear voice
of natural justice in this respect, the fundamental principles of the English
constitution are in our favor. It has been repeatedly
55 demonstrated, that the idea of legislation, or taxation,
when the subject is not represented, is inconsistent
with that. Nor is this all, our charters, the express
conditions on which our progenitors relinquished
their native countries, and came to settle in this,
60 preclude every claim of ruling and taxing us without our assent.
Every subterfuge that sophistry has been able to
invent, to evade or obscure this truth, has been refuted
by the most conclusive reasonings; so that we may
65 pronounce it a matter of undeniable certainty, that the
pretensions of Parliament are contradictory to the law
of nature, subversive of the British constitution, and
destructive of the faith of the most solemn compacts.
What then is the subject of our controversy with
70 the mother country? It is this, whether we shall
preserve that security to our lives and properties, which
the law of nature, the genius of the British constitution,
and our charters afford us or whether we shall resign
them into the hands of the British House of Commons,
75 which is no more privileged to dispose of them than
the Grand Mogul? What can actuate those men, who
labor to delude any of us into an opinion, that the
object of contention between the parents and the
colonies is only three pence duty upon tea? or that the
80 commotions in America originate in a plan, formed by
some turbulent men to erect it into a republican
government? The parliament claims a right to tax
us in all cases whatsoever; its late laws are in virtue of
that claim. How ridiculous then is it to affirm, that we
85 are quarrelling for the trifling Aim of three pence a
pound on tea; when it is evidently the principle against
which we contend.

Q-1 Which choice best describes the relationship between the two passages?

Q-2 Both passages discuss the tensions between Britain and the Colonies in terms of

Q-3 The author of Passage 2 would most likely respond to the statement in lines 13-17 of Passage 1 (“The Colonies … whatever “) with

Q-4 Galloway in Passage 1 would most likely characterize Hamilton ‘ s statement in lines 48-51 of Passage 2 (“Americans … do it”) as

Q-5 Galloway in Passage 1 and Hamilton in Passage 2 would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements?

3. Passage1 Is adapted from the website locavore.scom,
O 2010.P assag2e ls adapted from Ronald Ailey,
“the good miles mistake; 102 008R reason magazine.
Passage1 Our food now travels an average of 1,500 miles
before ending up on our plates. This globalization of
the food supply has serious consequences for the
environment, our health, our communities and our
5 tastebuds. Much of the food grown in the breadbasket
surrounding us must be shipped across the country to
dist3. Passage 1 is adapted from the website locavores.com,
2010. Passage 2 is adapted from Ronald Bailey,
“The Food Miles Mistake,” 2008 Reason magazine.

Passage1

Our food now travels an average of 1,500 miles
before ending up on our plates. This globalization of
the food supply has serious consequences for the
environment, our health, our communities and our
5 tastebuds. Much of the food grown in the breadbasket
surrounding us must be shipped across the country to
distribution centers before it makes its way back to
our supermarket shelves. Because uncounted costs
of this long distance journey (air pollution and global
10 warming, the ecological costs of large scale
monoculture, the loss of family farms and local
community dollars) are not paid for at the checkout
counter, many of us do not think about them at all.
What is eaten by the great majority of North
15 Americans comes from a global everywhere, yet
from nowhere that we know in particular. How many
of our children even know what a chicken eats or
how an onion grows? The distance from which our
food comes represents our separation from the
20 knowledge of how and by whom what we consume
is produced, processed, and transported. And yet, the
quality of a food is derived not merely from its genes
and the greens that fed it, but from how it is prepared
and cared for all the way until it reaches our mouths.
25 If the production, processing, and transport of what
we eat is destructive of the land and of human
community – as it very often is – how can we
understand the implications of our own participation
in the global food system when those processes are
30 located elsewhere and so are obscured from us?
How can we act responsibly and effectively for change
if we do not understand how the food system works
and our own role within it.
Corporations, which are the principal beneficiaries
35 of a global food system, now dominate the production,
processing, distribution, and consumption of food,
but alternatives are emerging which together
could form the basis for foodshed development.
Just as many farmers are recognizing the social and
40 environmental advantages to sustainable agriculture,
so are many consumers coming to appreciate the
benefits of fresh and sustainably produced food. Such
producers and consumers are being linked through such
innovative arrangements as community supported
45 agriculture and farmers’ markets. Alternative
producers, alternative consumers, and alternative small
entrepreneurs are rediscovering community and finding
common ground.

Passage2

In their recent policy primer for the Mercatus
50 Center at George Mason University, economic
geographer Pierre Desrochers and economic
consultant Hiroko Shimizu challenge the notion that
food miles – the distance food travels from farm
to plate – are a good sustainability indicator. As
55 Desrochers and Shimizu point out, the food trade
has been historically driven by urbanization. As
agriculture became more efficient, people were
liberated from farms and able to develop other skills
that helped raise general living standards. People
60 freed from having to scrabble for food, for instance,
could work in factories, write software, or become
physicians. Modernization is a process in which people
get further and further away from the farm.
Modern technologies like canning and refrigeration
65 made it possible to extend the food trade from staple
grains and spices to fruits, vegetables, and meats. As a
result, world trade in fruits and vegetables-fresh and
processed-doubled in the 1980s and increased by
30 percent between 1990 and 2001. Fruits and
70 vegetables accounted for 22 percent of the exports of
developing economies in 2001. If farmers, processors,
s~1ppers, and retailers did not profit from providing
distant consumers with these foods, the foods
wouldn’t be on store shelves. And consumers of
75 course, benefit from being able to buy fresh foods year around.
So just how much carbon dioxide is emitted by
transporting food from farm to fork? Desrochers and
Shimizu cite a comprehensive study done by the
80 United Kingdom’s Department of Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) which reported that
82 percent of food miles were generated within the
U.K. Consumer shopping trips accounted for
48 percent and trucking for 31 percent of British
85 miles. Air freight amounted to less than 1 percent of
food miles. In total, food transportation accounted for
only 1.8 percent of Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions.

Q-1 Which choice best describes the relationship between the two passages?

Q-2 The authors of both passages would most likely agree with which of the following statements about food?

Q-3 How would the author of Passage 2 most likely respond to the discussion in lines 8-14 of Passage 1 (“Because … all”)?

Q-4 Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

Q-5 How would the author of Passage 1 most likely respond to the authors of Passage 2’s claim about “fresh foods” (line 75)?

Q-6 Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?