This question has two parts. First, answer Part 1. Then, answer Part 2. Part 1 Read the passage from Sugar Changed the World . The Molasses Act accomplished nothing except to make Americans better smugglers. Yet the act was renewed again and again—until the crucial year of 1763. Just as the Molasses Act was due to expire, England completed its victory over France in the global contest known as the Seven Years’ War (the segment of that war fought in North America is often called the French and Indian War). To pay for the war, the prime minister decided to put some teeth into the legislation. Now called the Sugar Act, the law was designed to make sure the American colonists stopped smuggling and paid their sugar tax. As news of the toughened Sugar Act reached the North American colonists, they reacted with outrage—to them, this move by Parliament was precisely “taxation without representation.” In Boston, the General Assembly responded by saying, “If Taxes are laid upon us . . . without ever having a Legal Representative where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of Free Subjects to the miserable status of Tributary Slaves?” Soon assemblies in New York and North Carolina joined the chorus, protesting against the Sugar Act. When Parliament listened to the sugar lords, the colonists felt helpless, as if they were slaves. If England could take an American’s property, he was not a free man. And so when Thomas Jefferson, with John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, wrote the Declaration of Independence, he insisted that there were certain rights no man could ever lose: life, liberty, and property (which is part of what “pursuit of happiness” meant). But, while Jefferson thought of slavery as an evil that he hoped would eventually disappear, he still believed in his own right to buy and sell slaves. What claim do the authors make in the passage?