President Theodore Roosevelt argued in favor of additional regulations for the railroad industry. Which of the following documents could corroborate (support) his claim that these regulations were needed? Railway timetables that show when each train arrived at each station on a given line Swom statements from farmers about the harmful practices of railway companies they have experienced A transcript of the debate in Congress before the Interstate Commerce Act was passed in 1887 Profit reports from the railroad companies during the years since the 1887 law was passed

The best supporting document for Theodore Roosevelt's argument for further railroad regulation would be **sworn statements from farmers about the harmful practices of railway companies they have experienced.**<br /><br />Here's why:<br /><br />* **Direct Evidence of Harm:** These statements would provide firsthand accounts of the negative impact of railroad practices on individuals and businesses. This kind of direct evidence is the most compelling way to demonstrate the *need* for government intervention. Roosevelt could point to specific examples of unfair pricing, discriminatory practices, or other abuses to justify stronger regulations.<br /><br />* **Focus on the Problem:** Roosevelt's argument is about the *need* for regulation. The farmers' statements directly address this need by illustrating the problems the regulations are intended to solve.<br /><br />Why the other options are less helpful:<br /><br />* **Railway timetables:** While timetables might show inefficiencies or delays, they don't necessarily demonstrate the *need* for *further* regulation. They don't speak to unfair practices.<br />* **Transcript of the 1887 debate:** This document would be historically interesting, but it wouldn't necessarily reflect the situation in Roosevelt's time. Conditions could have changed significantly since 1887, making the earlier debate less relevant.<br />* **Profit reports from railroad companies:** Profit reports alone don't demonstrate the need for regulation. A company can be highly profitable while still engaging in unfair or harmful practices. In fact, high profits might be a *result* of such practices, strengthening the case for regulation.<br />