<p>ughh I misread prompt 5! It told me to “COMPARE AND CONTRAST” two countries’ actions but I accidentally read it as “ANALYZE” the two countries’ actions.</p>
<p>I thought I had written a good essay until I looked at the questions again today after they were released… Am I screwed? What is the highest score I could get without specifically pointing out similarities/differences and just doing an analysis of the things the two countries did? I don’t even think I explained any specific contrasts between the two nations in the essay.</p>
<p>Well looks like I screwed up my DBQ…
I put them in the groups of
rising militarism (basically I meant rising violence against the Weimar Rep.)
oppositions to Weimar Rep.
low spirits of german citizens (easily manipulated by hitler)</p>
<p>And my FRQs… 2 & 6, BSed both of them.
Everyone else in my class did 3 & 7, but I couldn’t really figure out enough about freud’s effect on morality to write a long enough essay, and 3 was just ughhhh. </p>
<p>^
Yeah. I was rushing and didn’t stop to think. If they said TRANS-Atlantic I would have known. I feel so stupid…</p>
<p>I wrote about how it let them gain access to materials they didn’t have and export their own. I wrote about the advent of the shipping industry.</p>
<p>And then I was stupid and talked about Mercantalism and tariffs…</p>
<p>dam. this really sucks. they should have been more specific and wrote trans-atlantic. i talked about the columbian exchange, transfer of diseases, and the spanish empire in america for like half of the essay. but the other half of my essay was overseas expansion that did not include america. :(</p>
<p>I think mercantilism was a big part of the question; it was one of the largest effects on Western Europe’s economy (which I forgot to mention). I talked about new industries, Price Revolution (i.e. metals–>inflation), colonies, and the triangular trade leading to a global economy.</p>
<p>As for the Compare/Contrast empires, I just wrote based on my thesis that Russia did more than Austria-Hungary did, which is (kinda not really) why Russia survived WWI and A-H did not (not really what I said, but the 2nd part was implied through my essay).</p>
<p>well, i skipped like 5 questions on mc part, but i’m pretty sure i got most of the other ones right. For me, mc and dbq were ok…mine was also 4 pages.
I chose 4&5 for frq, and I think I totally bs-ed it XDD I only wrote one and a half pg for both of them. I didn’t even know what I was talking about…oh and I wrote about mercantilism, tariffs and columbian exchange when i was writing 4. UGHHHHHHHHHH
I just put down everything I could think of…sighhhh i’m wishing for a 4!!!</p>
<p>I did 3+7
3: Compared Luther and Calvin basically. Luther wanted seperation, used the peasants revolt example, German nobles. Calvin wanted to combine the two, talked about Geneva, religious laws essentially.
7: Freud’s id, challenged Enlightenment idea of reasoning should dominate. Darwin’s evolution, obviously.
Is that decent?</p>
<p>@314159265
That’s almost exactly what I talked about but instead of triangular trade, I talked about mercantilism. My 3 examples were Spain, the Dutch, and France (1 paragraph for each).</p>
<p>@314159265 I implied the opposite - Austria and Hungary split relatively peacefully (essentially forced into dissolution by the Allies) but Russia got overthrown by the Bolsheviks (and temporarily lost control of much of Russia - but I didn’t mention that in my essay). AH lasted one year longer than Imperial Russia did. Of course that was all 3 years outside the given time period anyways.</p>
<p>I thought that overall this test was pretty hard. The MC was really in detail, there were only a few that aptly covered an vague amount. I felt that for every 7 questions I approached, 3 I got right, and 3 I could eliminate to either 3 or 2 options. There were only very few that I had no idea about.</p>
<p>The FR was totally different. I was excited about the DBQ, and while the topic was easy, THE DOCUMENTS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION ASKED. It was extremely hard for me to group the documents and eventually I had to somewhat BS it. I did 4 and 3 for the last two FR, which werent’ so bad if not for the fact that I couldn’t really include facts for the last one and I got confused in what I was trying to answer. How exactly can you explain HOW Darwin/Freud challenged traditional European thinking? It just does…because it’s radical? I don’t know. I came out of there with a bad feeling but considering that most people thought it was hard, hopefully i’ll get a 4. IDK.</p>
<p>I totally agree Velocity. I screwed up the dates and was confused about WHAT aspect of the Atlantic trade they were asking for- I ended up talking about how the USA indepence had an impact on the Atlantic economy trade with British? <em>laughs</em></p>
<p>Yeah, but DBQ was annoying. I had a LOT of outside information because I did study that subject, and that wasn’t bad, it was the fact the only things the Documents talked about was ‘oh propoganda propaganda blah blah blah’. I ended up splitting my groups into nationalism, differing perspectives/propaganda from the different groups, and civil war.</p>
<p>The second document, about the women voicing equality didnt really fit with the other ten. I grouped them in ,“people who thought they were backstabbed”, “the government reps”, communists, Nazis, “people who supported democracy” (The prof and the author). </p>
<p>I completely bsed my essays, HATED the *<strong><em>ing prompts. There was nothing about French Revolution or Collapse of Soviet. Instead they had *</em></strong>ing Freud and Darwin, which I know nothing about. I just realized that Simone de Beauvoire was part of the 1945 to present group. LOL put her with the earlier ones.</p>
<p>Bell ITA the woman’s one I just stuck in with ‘civil war’ along with the picture of the people fighting. Overall, the DBQ was just rape. The multiple choice was really annoying too. But considering that most people here found it difficult too…maybe the curve will be big? <em>prays</em></p>
<p>Lol I might have screwed up POVs. I started analyzing bias by looking the strategies of rhetoric that I learned in AP Lang class (i.e. pointing out chiasmis, rhetorical questions, connotative diction, appeals to logic versus ethics versus emotions etc.). Completely forgot what my history teacher taught me.</p>
<p>I just did the POV of three random ones and somewhat connected them to my thesis-ish? IDK. I don’t even know anymore. <em>facepalms</em></p>
<p>okay, for the Pipe question, where it was like ‘this is not a pipe’ (***?) It was either between surrealism or futurism for me. I put futurism…was it surrealism?</p>