The graph compares the number of bales of cotton (in millions) produced in a year to the number of enslaved workers (in millions) that year. The data are in this chart:

Question

Year Millions of bales of cotton Millions of enslaved workers
1800 0.1 0.9
1810 0.2 1.2
1820 0.3 1.5
1830 0.7 2.0
1840 1.3 2.5
1850 2.1 3.0
1860 3.8 4.0
The graph shows the percent share of cotton production that each state held in the years 1826 and 1859. The data are in this chart:

State Percent share in 1826 Percent share in 1859
Georgia 22.7% 15.4%
South Carolina 21.2% 6.9%
Alabama 13.6% 21.7%
Tennessee 13.6% 6.5%
Louisiana 11.5% 15.4%
Mississippi 6% 26.4%
North Carolina 3.1% 3.2%
Florida 0.6% 1.5%
Other 7.7% 3%

State Number (in thousands) in 1820 Number (in thousands) in 1860
Alabama 47.5
435.1
Arkansas 0 111.1
Florida 0 61.7
Georgia 149.7
462.2
Louisiana 69 331.7
Mississippi 32.8 436.6
North Carolina 205 331.1
South Carolina 251.8 402.4
Tennessee 80.1 275.7
Texas 0 182.6
Virginia 425.2 490.1

Use the charts to answer the question.
Based on the data on the charts, what can be inferred about the states that show an increase of enslaved workers and have low cotton shares?
(1 point)
Responses

Those states used slave labor to grow different crops.
Those states used slave labor to grow different crops.

Those states used additional slave labor in their factories.
Those states used additional slave labor in their factories.

Those states had only just begun to grow cotton and had to increase their workforce.
Those states had only just begun to grow cotton and had to increase their workforce.

Those states were new and data was not available prior to their entry into the Union.
Those states were new and data was not available prior to their entry into the Union.

Answer 1

Based on the data on the charts, the most plausible inference about the states that show an increase in enslaved workers and have low cotton shares is:

Those states used slave labor to grow different crops.

This inference is supported by the observation that states like Alabama and North Carolina show a substantial increase in the number of enslaved workers, yet their cotton production share is either low or varies significantly. It suggests that these states may have been utilizing enslaved labor for other agricultural purposes rather than cotton production.