Final answer:
The Three-Fifths Compromise dealt with the issue of representation and taxation. False.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the given condition, it does not specifically mention any dependency between the actions of J and M. The statement only establishes a relationship between J dancing fifth and M dancing second, but it doesn't state that M dancing second is a prerequisite for J to dance fifth. Therefore, there's no direct causal relationship stated between M dancing second and J dancing fifth, leaving room for J to potentially dance fifth without any direct link to M dancing second.
Hence, without additional information or conditions stipulating a direct dependency between M dancing second and J dancing fifth, the statement doesn't hold true as it lacks a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the two dancers' positions.
Correct answer: False