To determine which statement can be inferred from the painting, we need to analyze each option:
-
Since there are so many slaves working in the field, the cotton gin is not yet in use at this plantation.
- This statement can't be definitively inferred without additional historical context. The presence of slaves working in the field could be consistent with both the use and non-use of the cotton gin.
-
Since there is a steamboat in the background, the Industrial Revolution must be at an end.
- This statement is misleading. The presence of a steamboat would typically indicate that the Industrial Revolution is ongoing, as steamboats were a significant part of industrial and transportation development.
-
Since there are over 20 slaves in the image, the plantation owner would be considered a member of the cottonocracy.
- This is a reasonable inference. The term "cottonocracy" refers to the wealthy plantation owners who benefitted from cotton production, and having over 20 slaves suggests that the plantation was large and profitable.
-
Since there is such a small field of cotton, the main crop of this plantation must have been rice or tobacco.
- This statement cannot be inferred without more information. A small field of cotton does not necessarily imply that rice or tobacco was the main crop.
Based on this analysis, the most reasonable inference is:
Since there are over 20 slaves in the image, the plantation owner would be considered a member of the cottonocracy.
1 answer