Question

“In adopting some form of prohibition legislation during World War I, the United States was far from unique. Partial liquor control measures . . . had been enacted by many countries during the war, and some of the new drink regulations lasted permanently. But in its effort to totally eradicate the use of intoxicating liquor, the United States stood alone among major industrialized nations. The moral fervor of evangelical Protestants had intersected with the Progressive reform wave and the institutional openings provided by the war. Combined with political representation weighted heavily to rural districts and the limited political power of the law’s targets, the anti liquor crusaders were able to rewrite the Constitution and federal law.”
what is the argument of this passage?

Answer 1

Answer:

a)

The main claim of the passage is that, by implementing Prohibition, the United States took a step that was much more extreme and permanent than any of those that had been taken in other industrialized nations in connection with alcohol. The evidence that supports this argument is the fact that such legislation was included in the Constitution and in federal law.

b)

A piece of evidence that would help support the argument in the excerpt would be a list of measures that other countries took in respect to the topic of alcohol consumption. This would allow us to compare different measures between countries more easily.

c)

One way in which the process discussed in the passage compares with earlier reform movements is in the relentlessness and tirelessness of the people who encouraged reform. Both reform movements attempted to achieve great goals, and to influence federal legislation permanently.