Literature and the Holocaust have a complicated relationship. This isn't to say, of course, that the pairing isn't a fruitful one—the Holocaust has influenced, if not defined, nearly every Jewish writer since, from Saul Bellow to Jonathan Safran Foer, and many non-Jews besides, like W.G. Sebald and Jorge Semprun. Still, literature qua art—innately concerned with representation and appropriation—seemingly stands opposed to the immutability of the Holocaust and our oversized obligations to its memory. Good literature makes artistic demands, flexes and contorts narratives, resists limpid morality, compromises reality's details. Regarding the Holocaust, this seems unconscionable, even blasphemous. The horrors of Auschwitz and Buchenwald need no artistic amplification.
The topic sentence is usually the first sentence
Answer:
C). It describes how testimony on the brutal practices on sugar plantations convinced Parliament to end the slave trade.
Explanation:
As per the question, in the given passage from "Sugar Changed the World", the author's central claim is to display that how 'sugar trade led to the end of slavery' which he substantiates by proposing the evidence that states 'how acute brutality of sugar plantations persuaded the parliament to change its viewpoint and mark an end to the ongoing brutal enslavement/slave trade'.
This claim is reflected through the phrase "in the age of sugar, slavery...extreme brutal' that compelled the parliament to review its norms of slavery and mark its ending. Therefore, the author states 'sugar.....link between slavery and freedom'. Thus, option C is the correct answer.
Read more on Brainly.com - brainly.com/question/13652825#readmore
