Social Studies 20 - Demo
The Social Studies 20 disk contains 400 questions.
Examine the passage below before answering question # 7 to 9.
One never challenged the decision of the monarch because it was believed that to do so was akin to questioning God himself. It was believed that the leader was placed in power by God, and therefore he should be able to rule unchallenged.
As God's powers were unlimited, it was argued that there should be no restrictions or limits placed on the monarch's powers, they should be able to make whatever decisions, in any area, they saw fit.
It was also argued that the leader was accountable to God himself and therefore he would base his decisions on what was good for the state, and not make decisions based upon personal benefit or preference.
Examine the passage below before answering questions # 35 to 39.
Louis XIV's finance minister realized that something had to be done to replenish the funds of the nation's treasury. He felt that the only way to improve upon their position was to help the merchants in the nation increase their profit margins, feeling that the government with equally benefit as these profits were taxed.
Businesses established in French colonies were often given a monopoly of trade. An example of this was the Company of 100 Associates established in Canada. Domestic businesses were protected in France by limiting the number of products imported from other nations. This was accomplished through the application of quotas and tariffs on imports. Finally, the state attempted to assist domestic industry by building infrastructure and holding trade fairs to demonstrate new products and technologies which French businesses could benefit from.
Examine the passage below to assist you in answering questions # 98 to 100.
Napoleon was willing to concede that the British had a more effective and powerful navy than France. He also had the difficulty of getting his army across the English Channel. He decided that he would attempt to force Britain into submission through a trade blockade. He passed an edict which stated that all nations under his control were forbidden to trade with Britain. It was intimated that France would take punitive measures against any nation in their empire that did not comply. Also, he stated that any commercial ship that traded with Britain would not be allowed in any port found in his empire.
Britain responded with a plan of their own. The British indicated that any ships caught on the open seas, who refused to conduct trade with Britain, would be confiscated by the British navy. The British would take both the vessel and its cargo.
Examine the passage below to answer questions # 133 and 134.
Economically, the attitude evident during the Industrial Revolution towards employer-employee relations was one in which the strongest should prevail, that strong competitors would drive out weaker ones. Poor wages and the poor treatment of workers were simply an extension of the principle that "only the strong survive".
This relationship was extended to how foreign relations were viewed. Because of the belief that "only the strong should survive" it was acceptable, if not the natural order of things, for stronger nations to take over smaller, weaker states. This was the attitude of the "Imperialist Age".
Examine the passage below before answering questions # 135 to 137.
There are many ways in which one can maximize their profits by limiting the competition they experience associated in the sale of their product. One way is to control all industries involved in the production of a product. For instance, a car manufacturer might buy out tire manufacturing firms, car battery firms, etc., purchasing anything related to the production of the final product.
Another approach is to eliminate competition by buying out smaller competitors producing the same product. Extending the example above, this would involved a car manufacturer buying out other car producers.
A third approach would be to work out an arrangement with other producers to not actively compete with one another. All producers could set an arbitrary price which they all agreed upon, thereby restricting competition and increasing profits.
Examine the passage below before answering questions # 152 to 158.
Some philosophers, at the time of Industrial Revolution, surveyed the terrible working conditions which existed at the time and stated that there was need to structure society in such a way as to eliminate the owner-worker relationship. They believed that this relationship resulted in the exploitation of workers. Their solution was to create communal workshops or communities where workers would be able to work at creating whatever products they had a talent for. The profits from the sale of the products created by the collective group would then be split by the entire group. This group of philosophers concentrated on creating an "ideal society".
Another perspective which developed at this time was the idea that because of the exploitation of workers, associated with owners attempting to extend their profit margins, workers would have to eventually overthrow the industries and factories where they worked. It was believed that over time conditions would keep getting worse as owners attempted to exact larger profits. Eventually conditions would get so bad that workers would have no recourse other than to forceably take over the "means of production". Once factories were taken over, the workers would work together and share equally in the profits of their production.
A similar point of view which developed later was the concept that workers should elect political parties willing to pass social laws and introduce social insurance programs. This would remove the need for revolution or use of force, and would still improve working conditions. Further, the benefits of private ownership could continue as competition and personal initiative would remain. Governments would simply tax profits and redistribute income to reduce the gap betwen rich and poor.
Examine the passage below to answer questions # 168 and 169.
During the Age of Liberalism the idea that certain rights should not be violated, that these rights should be absolutely guaranteed, was developed. There was a believe that these rights should be guaranteed in a constitution, and should be entrenched in that constitution. One individual, most influential during the French Revolution, believed that the rights to "life, health and liberty" should be protected by, and guaranteed by, the government. This idea was later borrowed by Thomas Jefferson who imported this idea when writing the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson stated that all citizens were guaranteed the "to right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Examine the passage before answering questions # 178 to 185.
This conference was a response to Napoleon's defeat. The nations of Europe had to decide what should happen in Europe. The borders had to be determined. In setting the new borders, it was decided to attempt to create a balance of power in a hope of setting borders which would essentially create states of similar strength. In doing so, consideration was paid to balancing out the size and military power of each state. It was hoped that if nations were of balanced in power, the risk of war was reduced. Also, in setting the boundaries there was a desire to isolate one specific nation to prevent future conflict, by insuring that powerful states surrounded this nation.
Some problems existed in attempting to set up this balance of power. First, there was one nation that didn't fit well into the balance of power scheme. This problem was resolved by having this nation declared a neutral state. A second nation was strengthened by uniting two states together. Unfortunately these two states were not culturally suited for such a union and a movement began to break up the union. The people of this uncomfortable union practiced different religions and spoke different languages.
It was also decided that the key nations in Europe should act as the "policemen of Europe", putting an end to small conflicts and wars before they escalated into larger conflicts. They also wished to see Europe return to a period of "legitimacy" and quashing any political movement which challenged this.
Examine the passage below to assist you in answering questions # 220 to 228.
It is a testament to Bismarck's diplomatic capabilities that he was able to have an alliance with two nation who were natural competitors, competing for the same area. While this was an extremely loose alliance, only requiring consultation and cooperation in "matters of international importance, it nonetheless brought these two competitors together.
Later, requiring a stronger alliance with each of these competing powers, Bismarck entered into separate alliances with each of the them. The alliance and relationship with one of these powers which endured throughout World War One, stated that Germany and this nation would help each other if they were ever attacked by their former ally. Further, they would at least remain neutral if either side was ever attacked by another power. It was, again, a testament to Bismarck's diplomatic capabilities that he was able to have separate alliances with two competitors.
The alliance which Bismarck had with the other competing power stated that Germany and this state would remain neutral if either was attacked by a third party. This alliance was broken up by the leader of Germany who felt that he had a better understanding of foreign affairs than Bismarck. This led to this treaty being revoked and this nation entering the "Allied alliance".
Examine the passage below to assist you in answering questions # 252 to 257.
While Germany would be charged with the responsibility for causing WWI, the reality is that all nations in Europe were to some extent responsible for causing the war. While the extent of their responsibility varied, clearly all nations had at least some part in starting the war.
Nation A is generally considered to be the least responsible for starting the war. It can, however, be argued that this nation failed to adequately communicate to Germany that it would enter the war, especially if the Low Countries were attacked. Had this been made clear, perhaps Germany would have reconsidered its position or modified their plan of attack.
Nation B is responsible to the extent that it continually let it be known in the forum of international relations that it saw war providing it with the opporunity to regain territories lost to Germany much earlier. It could also be said that Nation B didn't limit its ally's involvment in attempting to gain a "sphere of influence" over the Balkans.
Nation C could have be held responsible to the point that it encouraged the growth of nationalism in a hope of wrestling itself out from the "sphere of influence" that a major European power had over it. It is also argued that the government of this state knew about the terrorist actions which sparked the war but refused to act to stop the actions.
Nation D was accused of threatening the use of force to get what it wanted in the area of foreign relations. It demonstrated such a threat in its declaration of potential support of the Boers in 1899, its use of "gunboat diplomacy" in Morocco in 1905 and the ultimatuums it issued to nations that mobilized during World War I.
Examine the passage below before answering questions # 312 to 314.
Third World states have complained in recent years that as the recession deepened, the Western World has increased their tariff wall and introduced quotas against them. This, in turn, has only served to place these nations in an even more desperate position, thereby increasing the gap between rich and poor.
In Canada a organization, the North-South Institute, was established to study and promote Canada's relations with developing nations. This group has put forward the argument that it is actually in Canada's best interest to cultivate Third World markets. The Conference Board of Canada, for example, in 1988 estimated that 135,000 Canadians lost their jobs due to the inability of Third World states to purchase Canadian goods.
It is argued that Canada needs to cultivate future markets in the Third World to offset the loss of our traditional markets. It is argued that we have lost two large markets. First, due to the movement towards an integration of economies of Western Europe, these states have limited the purchases they previously would have made from Canada. Second, with the end of the Cold War, in an attempt to show good faith, this former American rival has begun puchasing goods from the United States, rather from Canada.
It is also argued that Canada needs to cultivate markets elsewhere because of the amount of trade we conduct with the U.S.. It is estimated that up to 80% of our exports are sold to the United States, thereby creating a need for us to diversify our market.
Finally, it is argued that the Third World will be the key market of the future. If Canada begins establishing better relations with the developing world as they become developed, we will reap the economic benefits of this relationship established once these nations begin purchasing consumer goods. Currently approximately 80% of the world's population are found in the developing world, this part of the world represents the future market given the shortage of consumer goods currently found there coupled with the sheer size of the market. Further, the Third World market is growing rapidly; nine out of every ten children born each year are born in the Third World.
Examine the sources below to answer questions # 372 to 377.
Previous File .... Main List .... Next File