<p>OMFGGGGGGGGGG i confused ida b wells with ida tarbell thats why i had to guess cuz i was looking for smth with OIL in ittttt freakkkkkkkkkkkkkkk</p>
<p>The maps question was cattle trails. Industrial opp. for the Great Migration, though it /is/ a close call. Windfall taxes–it was an except question, so there WAS a successful anti-pollution policy implemented. Marshall Court-- found fed. laws superior to state laws.</p>
<p>i agree with mulberry on the privileges one… i dont think its what i put, i put like rules or something maybe its the same thing idk</p>
<p>but the passage was definitely raising revenue</p>
<p>was there like a q what caused the boston massacre or was that just on one of my prac tests</p>
<p>@mulberrypie - I also had trouble with those two questions. I think we might need some more people to confirm</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with the first. The other answers didn’t make sense, only the previleges did.
I agree with the second. They weren’t levying taxes for money - it was for the fact that they COULD levy it. That Parliament could do whatever the hell it wished - supporting the answer of w/o representation.</p>
<p>the texas map one is on there</p>
<p>“1. A successful antipollution campaign right after an oil embargo? Doesn’t make sense. My vote goes to windfall taxes.”</p>
<p>it was an except question. so just the opposite.</p>
<p>The answer is raising revenue. You would think that its another question of virtual representation, but nowhere in the passage is that issue addressed.</p>
<p>for the horizontal integration one-anyone remember the letter answer?</p>
<p>But raising revenue would imply that there is a purpose to the taxation. The question was asking why the colonists were angry; they were angry that the govt was taxing them just to tax them. Idk though, this one’s a tough one.</p>
<p>for the Windfall question heres something from wikipedia, some guy said it wasn’t windfall taxes but here’s some proof </p>
<p>In 1980, the United States enacted the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act (P.L. 96-223) as part of a compromise between the Carter Administration and the Congress over the decontrol of crude oil prices. The Act was intended to recoup the revenue earned by oil producers as a result of the sharp increase in oil prices brought about by the OPEC oil embargo. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Act’s title was a misnomer. “Despite its name, the crude oil windfall profit tax… was not a tax on profits. It was an excise tax… imposed on the difference between the market price of oil, which was technically referred to as the removal price, and a statutory 1979 base price that was adjusted quarterly for inflation and state severance taxes.”</p>
<p>so that would make the answer The Government didnt pass an anti-pollution bill or whatever</p>
<p>@ tayyyyy list makers add the one about electric train cars—think we settled that as expansion of citays?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My fault. I’m not even sure what I put, but hoping I noticed the except part.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you perhaps remember what act it was referring to? Pretty sure early 1760s acts were definitely for the purpose of raising revenue, but late 1760s, early 1770s ones were in complete defiance of colonial representation. Also, it is usually implied that representation is in their minds whenever texts of this sort is brought to question.</p>
<p>Dammit, aight so the answer was policy on conservatism and anti-pollution…?</p>
<p>yeah and on the passage about the taxing, i thought it was that they were taxing them to raise money, but certain parts of the quote eliminated the other answers like, “they weren’t taxing us for money, or for whatever, or whatever else he said” but it eliminated every one but the representation one. the problem was, he didnt say anything directly related to the representation issue really…, but i still put representation</p>
<p>No, the passage said that they were not taxing us to keep the empire together or to regulate a specific industry. They were just taxing us for the purpose of levying taxes i.e. raising revenue.</p>
<p>i’m looking at 11 wrong and 2 blank. small comfort that i think i aced bio and math ii. oh god, definitely taking us history again in the fall. is that even a 750?</p>
<p>LOLTHISKIDISCRYINGABOUTA750LOLOLL</p>
<p>you did fine qtp nbd i’d take you to my college</p>
<p>im pretty sure it said they weren’t taxing us for levying taxes, or to keep the empire together, or to regulate industry, like they were angry because there seemed to be no reason for the tax. even though i think it was like the sugar act trying to enforce tariffs just to prove they can, but that wasnt even an answer.</p>
<p>Why don’t you just look up the Townshend Acts so that you’ll be positive that you are wrong?</p>