Respuesta :

Hi There!!

I think the answer is False.

Because, I think there was that it was an indirect tax that was hard to protest. related to molasses, which was an everyday item. only required traders to pay the new tax. was an example of taxation without representation.

P.S Tell me if this is wrong...

[tex]GoodLuck!![/tex]

#[tex]Be[/tex] [tex]Bold[/tex]

# [tex]Always[/tex] [tex]Brainly!![/tex]

[tex]_{Loserbrazts}[/tex]

ヾ(•ω•`)o

Answer:

False.

Explanation:

This statement is false because logically, it makes no sense. The "hated taxes" were enforced by the British; thus, the buying of British goods would only further benefit the British. The opposite of this statement; which happens to be the correct answer, is that the most effect tactic the colonists used against the hated taxes was boycotting. Through boycotting British goods (not buying them), the colonists greatly reduced the colonial revenue of the British.

ACCESS MORE
EDU ACCESS