Great question — let me walk you through the logic of this passage step by step.
The passage gives us three key pieces of information:1. Slavery began in the early
1600s in the Americas.
2. The 'institution' of slavery presupposes (meaning: requires) a system of laws recognizing and protecting it.
3. BUT those laws weren't actually enacted until 'many years later.'
Note that the tension between points 2 and 3. Point
2 says the institution requires laws. Point
3 says the laws came AFTER the practice already existed. This means slavery as a practice was already happening before any legal framework supported it.
Now let's look at
answer A: it says that arguing laws NEEDED to exist before slavery COULD have existed is to 'ignore historical fact.' This is exactly what the passage demonstrates — the historical facts show slavery came first, laws came later. So anyone claiming 'laws must come before slavery can exist' is contradicted by the timeline the passage presents.
Why the other choices fail:-
B: The passage never mentions enslaving native Indians.
Goes beyond the passage.-
C: The passage says nothing about slavery existing elsewhere in the world before.
Goes beyond the passage.-
D: This is actually the
OPPOSITE of what the passage shows. The passage proves the practice developed WITHOUT a prior legal system.
-
E: While the passage mentions agricultural and household uses, it never claims that labor needs were a 'reason' slavery developed.
Goes beyond the passage.Key takeaway: On Inference questions, the correct answer must be fully supported by what's stated. Watch for answers that seem reasonable but go beyond the passage (like B, C, and E) or that contradict it (like D).Answer: A