Which of the following best explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes?(1 point) Responses 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. 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. 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.
Describe why religions expanded on the trade routes.(1 point) Responses It was cheaper to trade as a Muslim or Christian. It was cheaper to trade as a Muslim or Christian. War encouraged people to convert. War encouraged people to convert. Merchants and traders exchanged ideas as well as products. Merchants and traders exchanged ideas as well as products. Merchants were forced to convert in order to trade.
Merchants and traders exchanged ideas as well as products.
Which of these continents would be difficult to connect to via the trade routes?(1 point) Responses Africa Africa North America North America Europe Europe Asia
North America
Which of the following best describes why Mehmed II continued to trade with the Genoese despite their alliance with the Byzantines?(1 point)
The Genoese betrayed the Byzantines, so the Ottomans trusted them. The Genoese betrayed the Byzantines, so the Ottomans trusted them. Mehmed II understood the importance and benefits of maintaining trade with the Genoese, just as the Byzantines understood. Mehmed II understood the importance and benefits of maintaining trade with the Genoese, just as the Byzantines understood. They were already trading partners. They were already trading partners. Genoa was also a Muslim kingdom and its similar faith made it a natural ally.
Mehmed II understood the importance and benefits of maintaining trade with the Genoese, just as the Byzantines understood.
Which of the following best explains how physical geography impacted trade along the Silk Road?(1 point) Responses Maritime trade routes were developed throughout the Silk Road to avoid the mountains. Maritime trade routes were developed throughout the Silk Road to avoid the mountains. Deserts were flat and easy to travel across, so traders often went across them. Deserts were flat and easy to travel across, so traders often went across them. Lack of water along the Silk Road caused traders to flock to oases to survive. Lack of water along the Silk Road caused traders to flock to oases to survive. Mountains such as the Pamir Mountains made trade difficult, so traders often avoided them. Mountains such as the Pamir Mountains made trade difficult, so traders often avoided them.
Mountains such as the Pamir Mountains made trade difficult, so traders often avoided them.
To determine which of the options best explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes, let's analyze each option and their respective reasoning.
Option 1 states that "Trans-Saharan trade was more significant because it had more valuable resources such as salt, gold, and ivory." This option emphasizes the valuable resources available through the trans-Saharan trade route, specifically salt, gold, and ivory. However, it does not consider the significance of the Indian Ocean trade route.
Option 2 repeats the same statement as option 1 and makes no additional points, so it can be disregarded.
Option 3 states that "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 takes a broader perspective, acknowledging the significance of both routes and highlighting their contributions to cultural developments. It also argues that worth should not be solely measured by the goods traded.
Option 4 claims that "Neither of them was significant because both were limited in whom they could reach." This option dismisses the significance of both trade routes based on their limited reach. However, it fails to acknowledge the impact and importance of these routes within their respective regions.
Option 5 argues that "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." This option emphasizes the significance of the Indian Ocean trade route by highlighting its connection between regions and the presence of valuable goods like silk and porcelain.
Considering these options, the best explanation of the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes is option 3. This option recognizes that both routes were equally significant in their own unique ways, contributing to cultural developments. It highlights that the worth of these trade routes cannot be solely measured by the goods that were traded.