<p>i meant 74/90 as in i subtracted the -1/4s and everything. so like 77/90</p>
<p>A 700 is 64/90 at the very least.</p>
<p>does anyone have any idea what the scale was in the past test administration?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My problem here is that this has nothing to do with US History. yes, maybe it’s true, but unless you take Euro or World you would never know about Henry the Navigator. But additionally, supposedly, there might be a modifier to the question that makes it specific to North America, and if so, then the answer is Spain (systematically itself might do so, because no other nation was so focused upon one continent and exploring it as Spain was with NA?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I do agree with this now, but at the same time, wasn’t it true that they were anticommunists even at the start of their careers? I mean they definitely weren’t communists…</p>
<p>I do not remember either Nixon or Kennedy using their war credentials to start out in office, THOUGH they were veterans. I can’t believe they tossed a curveball like this at us though…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was an option? I swore that wasn’t an option. I have an alternative objection, however. I was worried that it might be E(?) the option that says that America was disillusioned. I looked it up, it’s true, after WWI America’s population in general was disillusioned at having fought a gigantic world war yet have leaders who refused to truly cooperate for world peace…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve answered this several times already–the problem is that counteracting European influence is breaking away from isolationism, which we did basically maintain, except for the hiatus of WWI, into the period prior to WWI. Besides trade–the Open Door Policy, I would argue, is trade, which is different. We were not “imperializing” China, either. There’s a clear difference between getting trading rights to a sphere of influence and actually colonizing it. The US never colonized China.</p>
<p>I mention this earlier, Frederick Turner’s Frontier Thesis explains that we need some sort of a “leaking valve,” or outlet, that allows for the downtrodden or lower classes to escape as society becomes more and more crowded. This happens empirically in America–we don’t need overpopulation to accomplish this. All that’s necessary is that people need to escape.</p>
<p>Another thing to note is that “imperialist” ideology doesn’t mean that the thing needs to be into fruition. Imperialist might argue that “should we overpopulate in the future,” the “US needs colonies for our population to go to.” That’s clear imperialist thinking–the US first, the mother land first, etc. Ever option from B-E in that question prioritizes the US first, which is what imperialism is about.</p>
<p>The USSR took a majority of Eastern Russia for the sake of creating a buffer between itself and the democracies in Western Europe, but it was never necessary, since the democracies of the west never chose to wage war or proliferate our ideology at him from the “European Front” of the Cold War. Note how here, imperialism, is justified and used but without just cause–Stalin should have known that the US would never attack after taking a few satellites (Announcement of containment policy). It was not necessary to continue taking more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Legend, does that already factor in -1/4?</p>
<p>If it does. Wow.</p>
<p>i remember there being a question about what the census reported…it was the frontier was closed or something</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is actually practice test #3 on the Sparknotes US History site.</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>[SparkNotes:</a> SAT Subject Test: U.S. History: Scoring and the SAT II U.S. History](<a href=“http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/history/chapter2section3.rhtml]SparkNotes:”>http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/history/chapter2section3.rhtml)</p>
<p>red, you do agree that the one about imports vs. exports graph was imports > exports was false right? not that they were equal before the war, which you have?</p>
<p>yea i also think that they were anticommunists…they were also war veterans…</p>
<p>i know that kennedy and mccarthy were friends when they were younger because they both were anticommunists. but i do not know if that is what got them started.</p>
<p>i would like to point out, however, that in regards to the kennedy/mccarthy question, labeling them as “war heroes” seems a little strong. Yes, they were involved in war, but I wouldn’t necessarily term nixon a “war hero.” Moreover, Mccarthy himself lied about his war service. He was not nearly as involved as he proclaimed. We DO know, however, that they were all anticommunists and they started their political careers after World War II, as the question presents. It’s important to remember that being war vets didn’t get them into positions of leadership. Nixon got powerful after the HUAC investigation, for instance. </p>
<p>I’m just throwing this out there, not saying that I’m definitely correct. Yet I believe I am correct here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Popular support seems to be for what I have, they’re equal. It just is empirically true. I’m pretty sure imports were not > exports at times. If I remember correctly and the huge spike during wartimes was exports?</p>
<p>Anticommunism one is a huge flop. Like…I’m sure they talked about being anticommunist at one point and that is helpful. It just has to be…since neither Nixon NOR Kennedy ran on their military status. It was probably some sort of an anticommunist foreign policy. Plus, you do realize, that their military war veteran status is … almost not covered in any book?</p>
<p>And that’s an interesting fact. Might be useful if I decide to write a huge, huge letter of complaint to college board. =P</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree quite readily.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh bully me. Unless the curve is nice and cute, looks like I’ll get a 740 =P Or 750. Maybe higher, but these not-sures aren’t really swinging my way…and there’s 5 we still don’t account for.</p>
<p>but the question asked “which of the following is NOT true of the graphs”, which would mean imports>exports because that was not true.</p>
<p>btw, i think they were anticommunists…if you read both mccarty and nixon’s wiki pages, it says paraphrased something like “they rose to the national front after their communist red hunts”</p>
<p>just to add two more questions to the list:</p>
<p>well, i stated one earlier. it was a picture of mcclures magazine and asked when it dated from. answer was the 1920s.</p>
<p>the second one had to do with a business that moved out of the home into the factory in the early 19th century. answer was textiles.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but the question asked “which of the following is NOT true of the graphs”, which would mean imports>exports because that was not true.</p>
<p>btw, i think they were anticommunists…if you read both mccarty and nixon’s wiki pages, it says paraphrased something like “they rose to the national front after their communist red hunts”[/quote[</p>
<p>I don’t remember that. I think everybody I’ve talked to has said which is true? But I’ll check with other people I know.</p>
<hr>
<p>4 more!</p>
<ol>
<li>most English tobacco labor before 1680 was indentured servants</li>
<li>difference between Mass/VA and Spanish colonies: joint stock</li>
<li>local colonial affairs dealt with by: town meetings</li>
<li>Obligation to enforce court rulings: Eisenhower</li>
<li>led to depression: production v. consumption</li>
<li>1880s and 1890s party agreement: no immigration from china</li>
<li>ICC and sherman antitrust: first one is regulatory, second is prohibitory</li>
<li>lost generation: writers who go off to europe who were disillusioned by the 1920s</li>
<li>reason for the second new deal: deepening recession still present, had to fix it, to quell critics (critics said Roosevely wanted to destroy capitalism?)</li>
<li>lowell picture: availability of factory work for men and women</li>
<li>first to be settled by europeans: FL</li>
<li>quote about segregated schools being unequal: brown v board</li>
<li>14th point: self-determination</li>
<li>helped french in french and indian war: Iroquois</li>
<li>saratoga: french support</li>
<li>bad farming conditions in quote: 1890s</li>
<li>book not matched with setting: farewell to arms and reconstruction</li>
<li>open door: interest in commerce in china</li>
<li>judicial review: john marshall (don’t think this was one of the options. the only relevant option was madison. it didn’t have marbury or marshall as choices)</li>
<li>jefferson and hamilton: j was strict construction, h was loose construction</li>
<li>nixon, mccarthy, jfk: anticommunists</li>
<li>carters unpopularity: iran hostage crisis</li>
<li>what didnt lbj do in great society: social security</li>
<li>vietnam war in us: caused division in unity on homefront</li>
<li>native american population loss: european disease and lack of resistance</li>
<li>picture of dots in south: good land in southern area for plantation farming</li>
<li>Roosevelt Corollary - intervene in Latin America</li>
<li>Dred Scott case - he is not a citizen and cannot speak for himself in court</li>
<li>JFK Soviet missiles in Cuba - naval embargo of Cuba</li>
<li>Walt Whitman poem questions - Rejecting Reason</li>
<li>What movement does the poem come from. – Romanticism</li>
<li>1920s immigration stopped flow of- southern/eastern Europeans</li>
<li>first to have regular maritime voyages- Spain (? vs. Portugal!)</li>
<li>Era of Good Feelings was hindered by- issue of slavery in new territories</li>
<li>Missouri Compromise - led to Missouri as a slave state</li>
<li>Clay and Warhawks supported War of 1812 - To drive out British/Indians in the West</li>
<li>who did not support FDR in the 1936 election – Industrialist</li>
<li>manifest destiny- spread to the Pacific Ocean</li>
<li>desegregation of military- Truman in Korea</li>
<li>Agibail Adams and John Adams letters - Women were interested in being politically equal</li>
<li>Indian Removal of the 1830s- Trail of Tears</li>
<li>19th Amendment- women can vote</li>
<li>Nixon policy of d</li>
</ol>
<p>mierda!!! i have to study for AP Comp politics… but i want to know my approx grade!! haha… how would the score be if i omitted 6 questions and 10 wrong??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>740 in the least. Unless…well, unless everybody else got 800.</p>
<p>Isolationism has nothing to do with American Foreign Policy during the 1880s. The United States only stuck to isolationism regarding EUROPEAN AFFAIRS and it primarily was after expansionism was over. The United States practically invaded Panama, started a war in the Caribbean with Spain, etc. Isolationism came about in 1906, not before then. Besides, isolationism means avoid direct contact. Expansionism hardly avoided direct contact. Furthermore, it was discussing expansion in non-European territories, so it was not a direct response. Overpopulation makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It does not matter that the frontier is closed. The frontier was closed in 1890 but territories still existed due to unmet population requirements (Arizona, the last state to be recognized in the contiguous United States was admitted in 1912). </p>
<p>Regarding the JFK, McCarthy, Nixon question, almost every politician said he was anti-communist so that is a moot point. The question specifically asked how each got STARTED - I’ll repeat it for emphasis - STARTED in politics. Nixon got famous in the HUAC meetings, which are meetings in the House of Representatives, which means AFTER he entered politics. McCarthy, a strong anti-communist, only became just that right before he ran for RE-ELECTION. JFK was NEVER an out-spoken anti-communist. JFK was a NATIONAL HERO for PT-105, he was on TIME magazine for it. McCarthy wasn’t actually a war hero, but when he STARTED to run for senator, he claimed he was and people recognized him as Tail-Gunner Joe. Nixon was also another decorated veteran of WWII (he was a Lieutenant Commander).
“Following the END of the war, prominent Republicans in Whittier approached Nixon about running for Congress in 1946. Nixon accepted their offer, and, on November 6, 1946, defeated Democratic Congressman Jerry Voorhis by more than fifteen thousand votes.”</p>
<p>wait a minute, i thought southern farmers didn’t support FDR. </p>
<p>Didn’t all northerners (who include industrialists) support FDR? </p>
<p>And for some reason, i could not see white southerners and blacks supporting the same party. ???</p>
<p>wasn’t there also a question about foreign policy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What part of this changes the Turner Thesis? A tenement of his imperialism, OVERALL, is getting more land for the population. If the Turner Thesis was generally accepted, then I don’t see what part of your argument responds to this.</p>
<p>I do understand that it wasn’t necessary to compensate for a “huge” population like China should, my point is that imperialism would take that into account–it’s a “reason” why the US should, because “say in 100 years we have too many people…we can send them there!”</p>
<hr>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a question concerning beginning political careers: is the concern where their careers take off, or where their careers literally begin? Because if JFK and Nixon were both famous because of their military status at the time of their army enrollment, then that doesn’t mean anything. Sure, McCarthy used it to begin his career, that’s fine. But was JFK’s platform literally “I’m a war hero, vote for me?” I know they might have been heroes, but my question is, did that start them in politics?</p>
<p>Or, was it that, they got really started in politics because of their anticommunism? For example, like you said, McCarthy gets elected on his military-hero facade but THEN gains real political power with McCarthyism. Isn’t that more indicative that his political career “takes off” due to that assertion?</p>
<p>I think there might be a difference between “began to be a politician” and political “career,” etc. I don’t really know what to say about this, because all of it seems to be true.</p>
<p>But at the same time, isn’t the fact that McCarthy lied a reason why that must be rejected? 2 who ARE war heroes DIDN’T abuse that fact. THEN, the one who does abuse it, isn’t a war hero.</p>
<p>That’s like us saying that McCain was running as a “military man” in the recent election. We were ALL aware of his status as a fine patriot in the service of his nation, but that was never his platform, and that certainly was not the start of his “political campaign” for President.</p>
<p>It only seems to beg the question then, why doesn’t every military hero become a politician? Or even EVERY military man, since one of them, wasn’t even a hero?</p>
<p>Should have skipped some. =(</p>