***Official AP US Government & Politics 13-14 Thread***

Test Preparation AP History & Social Sciences
161

<p>woops its public now <a href=“gov - Google Docs”>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hTzAobs2j2S2Pp5xUnG_sHhpzNg2-GAikVW2uDVybpQ/edit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

162

<p>@danebrick it’s retrospective voting just looked it up in textbook and its definition matches with the question word for word</p>

163

<p>@lolapz it’s view only</p>

164

<p><a href=“https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZW5vzMWN-qooqkWYETxO-6lEa4-kQNpWDqPljyTQAjk/edit”>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZW5vzMWN-qooqkWYETxO-6lEa4-kQNpWDqPljyTQAjk/edit&lt;/a&gt;
^here</p>

165

<p>Ummm none of us can edit it</p>

<p>At least let us post some comments, so that the owners can better modify it…</p>

166

<p>Whats the federalist and anti federalist national government view?
Was it that federalist wanted a stronger national government than antifeds and antifeds wanted a stronger state government? </p>

167

<p>What if you put a factually incorrect answer? For one of the frq I correctly identified the trend but had the wrong reasons, so I answered the question correctly. Also, for another, I incorrectly said McCullough dealt with the commerce clause</p>

168

<p>@tomatox1 as long as you didn’t contradict youself you’re fine. also you’ll still get points for the trend cause that’s separate from the other parts of the question. and I said mcculloh dealth with the supremacy clause</p>

169

<p>You guys seriously need to be careful about what you discuss online.</p>

170

<p>Yeah, you’re not supposed to discuss yet.</p>

171

<p>The trolls will keep trolling. It’s funny that they can only do it by repeating the same racial slur 500x. </p>

172

<p>???</p>

173

<p>Crash Course> </p>

174

<p>did we have to do both motor voter and photo id? if so, do you think each will be worth 1 or 2 pts?</p>

175

<p>@shutterstock yea we had to explain both and each is worth a point probably</p>

176

<p>I’m pretty sure concurring opinion is wrong…isn’t it dissenting?</p>

177

<p>I thought it was concurring</p>

178

<p>@Kpopzz‌ </p>

<p>no</p>

179

<p>Isn’t it when the judge doesn’t agree with the majority? Or maybe i read the q wrong…someone clarify? </p>

180

<p>The question from my memory asked about a judge who agrees with the majority but not through the same process or methods used.</p>