Why couldn't Leif Erikson settle in Newfoundland?

• A. He was a sole adventurer with no king and no financial backing
• B. The land lacked resources
• C. The climate was too harsh
• D. He preferred Iceland

Answer: (A)

The main point being tested is why sustaining a distant settlement in this era required more than a lone traveler. Leif Erikson could reach Newfoundland, but establishing a lasting colony demanded political backing and funds to cover ships, supplies, and ongoing resupply from home. Without a king or a wealthy sponsor to commit resources for a long-term project, the venture couldn’t be maintained, so the settlement didn’t endure. The Norse did make a brief presence there, but without sustained support, a durable colony wasn’t feasible. The other options aren’t as persuasive: some resources or a harsh climate were real factors in exploration, but they weren’t the decisive obstacle, and there’s no historical basis for him simply preferring Iceland.