by Mark Twain
“A recess of half an hour was then taken, and some little caucusing followed. At the sound of the gavel the meeting reassembled, and the committee reported in favor of Messrs. George Ferguson of Kentucky, Lucien Herrman of Louisiana, and W. Messick of Colorado as candidates. The report was accepted.
“MR. ROGERS of Missouri: ‘Mr. President, — The report being properly before the House now, I move to amend it by substituting for the name of Mr. Herrman that of Mr. Lucius Harris of St. Louis, who is well and honorably known to us all. I do not wish to be understood as casting the least reflection upon the high character and standing of the gentleman from Louisiana—far from it. I respect and esteem him as much as any gentleman here present possibly can; but none of us can be blind to the fact that he has lost more flesh during the week that we have lain here than any among us—none of us can be blind to the fact that the committee has been derelict in its duty, either through negligence or a graver fault, in thus offering for our suffrages a gentleman who, however pure his own motives may be, has really less nutriment in him—’
"Cannibalism in the Cars" by Mark Twain
Question
Use the passage to answer the question.
Which explicit statement is best supported by the details in the passage?
(1 point)
Responses
The passengers are horrified at the thought of resorting to cannibalism.
The passengers are horrified at the thought of resorting to cannibalism.
Mr. Rogers speaks to express his dissatisfaction with being chosen by the committee.
Mr. Rogers speaks to express his dissatisfaction with being chosen by the committee.
The passengers oppose the candidates chosen by the committee.
1 answer
The explicit statement that is best supported by the details in the passage is:
The passengers oppose the candidates chosen by the committee.
This is indicated by Mr. Rogers’ motion to amend the committee's report by substituting Mr. Herrman's name, which suggests that he and possibly other members are not in favor of the original proposal, pointing to opposition to the candidates selected by the committee.
