<ol>
<li>Women in 19th century - clerical workers</li>
</ol>
<p>what was this?</p>
<ol>
<li>Matching Question - AFL - Skilled Labor</li>
</ol>
<p>could you please jog my memory on what the question asked??</p>
<p>i’m guessing that it said the AFL was… but the choices?</p>
<p>any guess on what 11 wrong = ?</p>
<p>ps:: are we sure (as much as possible) that the free men, free land, etc = republican ideology? because the homestead act didn’t guarantee no slavery, right? idk…</p>
<p>@zmonster: it said something along the lines of: why/how did the female get more jobs in either the 1800s or the 1900s. it was not the garment one. … helpful? probs nottt:)</p>
<p>Why did women get more jobs in the 1800’s/1900’s?</p>
<p>A: More clerical and service positions.</p>
<p>Any guesses to the curve for an 800 compared to the BB one? (which is 79 raw = 800). Was this test harder or easier?</p>
<p>I didn’t take it but:</p>
<p>“And while a tariff might provide incentives for additional oil production in the U.S., it would also create a windfall for existing production. This would require new taxes to focus the incentives, instead of rewarding the whole industry. The result would resemble the era of “Old Oil” and “New Oil” that led to fraud and bureaucratic waste in the 1970s and early 1980s.”</p>
<p>Then again I think the first anti-pollution movement started in the early 1970s. Does anyone remember the exact question + answer choices?</p>
<p>@zmonster124: </p>
<p>The incontrovertible answer is: Jimmy Carter did not pass comprehensive pollution/energy reform. </p>
<p>He did pass a windfall profits tax: </p>
<p>“The 1980 Windfall Profits Tax
As is also illustrated by Figure 1, during the 1980s the federal government experimented with a new tax intended to limit the “windfall profits” of domestic oil companies. In reaction to the rise of energy prices during the late 1970s and the removal of price controls on the energy industry, President Jimmy Carter signed the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act into effect on April 2, 1980.”</p>
<p>Source: [The</a> Tax Foundation - Oil Company Profits and Tax Collections: Does the U.S. Need a New Windfall Profits Tax?](<a href=“http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html]The”>http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html)</p>
<p>what would -20 no omissions be about?</p>
<p>^Sullivan, that was following the 1979 oil crisis. I believe the test asked about the effects of the 1973 crisis. Can anyone confirm?</p>
<p>Also, there was significant environmental reform during the 1970’s.</p>
<p>Yeah, seriously. There were far too many questions about books.
I keep kicking myself for getting the Ida Wells question wrong</p>
<p>omg DITTO for the Ida Wells. I put lynching and then changed it. Ugh.</p>
<p>I felt much more confident after I finished the APUSH exam.
They absolutely asked far too many questions about the books. </p>
<p>What were the New York Riots linked too?</p>
<p>irish immigration (it’s in the consolidated list)</p>
<p>It wasn’t just about Irish immigration: It was Irishmen protesting the draft. However, the choice was worded: “Irish immigrants blahblahblahblah draft blahblahblahblahblah,” so that might be what you guys are referring to.</p>
<p>On another note, since last month’s test sounds far easier (based on the consolidated answer list they had -it was all obvious stuff), and last month was when most of the test takers were in APUSH, whereas this month’s test takers are in honors or regular courses, do you think we might get a much better curve?</p>
<p>A lot of people in APUSH took this month too.
I think the curve is pre-determined, just like the normal SAT.</p>
<p>thanks! i would be really happy if i did break the 700s lol, i walked out thinking i failed.</p>
<p>Sullivan, that was following the 1979 oil crisis. I believe the test asked about the effects of the 1973 crisis. Can anyone confirm?</p>
<p>Also, there was significant environmental reform during the 1970’s. </p>
<p>^Have we reached a consensus about the wording and answer to this question? Also, what was last month’s curve?</p>
<p>Why was the question about Washington’s Farewell Address the League of Nations choice rather than the Good Neighbor Policy choice?</p>
<p>Because with the Good Neighbor Policy we were entangling ourselves in foreign affairs, which Washington told us not to do in his farewell speech. By choosing not to join the league of nations, we followed what he said in his address by not being in any alliance.</p>
<p>Is a 58/90 a 700 on this exam you think?</p>