Question

Read the passage from "The Salem (and Other) Witch Hunts,” which is an informational text about witch hunts in the late 1600s.

The sentencing of Bridget Bishop, the first victim of the witch trials, was typical of the Salem justice. Bishop was accused of not living "a Puritan lifestyle" because she wore black clothing. Her coat had been found to be oddly "cut or torn in two ways,” and her behavior was regarded as "immoral.” Thus convicted of witchcraft, she was tried on June 10, 1692, and executed by hanging the same day.



Immediately following this execution, the court adjourned for 20 days and asked for advice from New England's most influential ministers "upon the state of things as they then stood.” A mere five days later, they produced a voluble answer penned by Cotton Mather, the prolific pamphleteer of the period, assuring the court and the grand jury that they had done well.

The prominent ministers "humbly recommend[ed]" more of the same: that is, "the speedy and vigorous prosecution of such as have rendered themselves obnoxious, according to the direction given in the laws of God, and the wholesome statutes of the English nation . . . ”

More people were accused, arrested and examined, but historians believe that by September 1692 the hysteria had begun to abate and public opinion turned against the trials.

Which text structure supports the idea that the sentencing was swift and the hysteria surrounding the witch hunts was relatively short-lived?

sequence
comparison-contrast
cause-effect
problem-solution

Answer 1

The text structure which supports the idea that the sentencing was swift and the hysteria surrounding the witch hunts was relatively short-lived is:

A. sequence.

Step-by-step explanation:

The two points or topics presented and discussed in the passage are precisely those: the quickness in sentencing the accused, and the fact that the witch hunts did not last for long. However, the two topics are not connected. One is not the consequence of the other. One is not the solution for the other. One is not compared to the other. That is why the author chooses to use a structure that relies on sequencing the events. Dates are mentioned with that purpose:

- in June 10 of 1692 there was the first trial;

- the sentencing in that one as well as others was always fast;

- by September of 1962, the public opinion was already against the trials.

We have basically a sequence of events above. What the author is doing, primarily, is saying that first this thing happened, and then this other thing happened.