Why were backcountry colonists more self-sufficient than plantation owners? (1 point) They had more slaves to help them. Farming along the coast provided everything they needed. Living in the "breadbasket" provided them with enough money from their cash crops. Nearly everything they needed was made at home.
Nearly everything they needed was made at home.
A one-year subscription to a magazine costs $45.00. If you buy 12 issues of the same magazine at the store, you will pay $4.95 for each. How much will you spend buying the magazine at the store for a year?
$14.40
$49.95
$59.40
$104.40
If you buy 12 issues of the magazine at the store for $4.95 each, you will spend 12 * 4.95 = $59.40 for a year. Therefore, the correct answer is $59.40.
The reason why backcountry colonists were more self-sufficient than plantation owners can be attributed to the fact that nearly everything they needed was made at home.
The answer is: Nearly everything they needed was made at home.
To arrive at this answer, we need to analyze the given options and determine which one supports the idea that backcountry colonists were more self-sufficient than plantation owners.
1. They had more slaves to help them: This option suggests that having more slaves would contribute to greater self-sufficiency. However, it does not address whether the backcountry colonists or plantation owners were more self-sufficient.
2. Farming along the coast provided everything they needed: This option suggests that farming along the coast provided all the necessary resources. While it might apply to both backcountry colonists and plantation owners, it does not specify one group being more self-sufficient than the other.
3. Living in the "breadbasket" provided them with enough money from their cash crops: This option indicates that living in the "breadbasket" (an area with fertile soil and ample crops) enabled them to generate sufficient income from their cash crops. While it might apply to both groups, it does not describe one group being more self-sufficient than the other.
4. Nearly everything they needed was made at home: This option implies that backcountry colonists relied mainly on producing goods within their households for their needs. This indicates that they were more self-sufficient than plantation owners, who might have been more reliant on external sources for their requirements.
Considering these options, the most appropriate answer is that backcountry colonists were more self-sufficient than plantation owners because nearly everything they needed was made at home.