Which of the following best explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes?(1 point)

Question

Responses

Neither of them was significant because both were limited in whom they could reach.
Neither of them was significant because both were limited in whom they could reach.

The Indian Ocean basin was more significant because it connected the Middle East and parts of Africa with Asia, specifically China, and it had important goods such as silk and porcelain.
The Indian Ocean basin was more significant because it connected the Middle East and parts of Africa with Asia, specifically China, and it had important goods such as silk and porcelain.

The routes were equally significant—each in its own way—as they both contributed to significant cultural developments along the routes, and worth cannot be measured simply by the goods that were traded.
The routes were equally significant—each in its own way—as they both contributed to significant cultural developments along the routes, and worth cannot be measured simply by the goods that were traded.

Trans-Saharan trade was more significant because it had more valuable resources such as salt, gold, and ivory.
Trans-Saharan trade was more significant because it had more valuable resources such as salt, gold, and ivory.

Answer 1

The most balanced response is:

The routes were equally significant—each in its own way—as they both contributed to significant cultural developments along the routes, and worth cannot be measured simply by the goods that were traded.

This option acknowledges that both trade routes played crucial roles in the exchange of goods, ideas, and cultures, highlighting their unique contributions to the regions they connected. While certain goods traded along each route were valuable, the cultural and social impacts were significant as well.