Top Posters
Since Sunday
48
s
39
11
s
6
6
6
b
5
s
5
D
5
t
5
i
5
v
5
New Topic  
mohamedd mohamedd
wrote...
Posts: 10
Rep: 0 0
2 months ago
 *Question 1

    Passage 1

    War and terrorism have revived interest in politics in the United States. Students and attentive citizens who a few years ago turned away from politics are paying attention again. U.S. electoral turnout, with voters angered by the war in Iraq and spurred by controversies over candidates and their policies, is up from lows of 50 percent in presidential elections.(from Political Science: An Introduction, Chapter 1)

    The best title for this passage would be 
          

    a- Why Americans Are Interested in Politics Again
          
    b-Why Do Voters Turn Out in Presidential Elections?

    c-War and American Politics
          
    d-Why Do Students Vote?

 *Question 2

    Passage 1

    War and terrorism have revived interest in politics in the United States. Students and attentive citizens who a few years ago turned away from politics are paying attention again. U.S. electoral turnout, with voters angered by the war in Iraq and spurred by controversies over candidates and their policies, is up from lows of 50 percent in presidential elections.(from Political Science: An Introduction, Chapter 1)

    The context clues in the passage suggest that the best definition for revived is
          
  a-  to become disengaged
          
  b- to become active again
          
  c- lifeless
  
  d- rewarding

 *Question 3

    Passage 1

    War and terrorism have revived interest in politics in the United States. Students and attentive citizens who a few years ago turned away from politics are paying attention again. U.S. electoral turnout, with voters angered by the war in Iraq and spurred by controversies over candidates and their policies, is up from lows of 50 percent in presidential elections.(from Political Science: An Introduction, Chapter 1)

    The tone of the above passage could best be described as

    a- straightforward
          
    b- dramatic
          
    c- biased   

    d- bitter

*Question 4

  Passage 1

War and terrorism have revived interest in politics in the United States. Students and attentive citizens who a few years ago turned away from politics are paying attention again. U.S. electoral turnout, with voters angered by the war in Iraq and spurred by controversies over candidates and their policies, is up from lows of 50 percent in presidential elections.(from Political Science: An Introduction, Chapter 1)

What can we infer from the above passage?
      
a -the voting public is never engaged in the political process
      
b- the voting public is always engaged in the political process
      
c- the voting public becomes more engaged with the political process when confronted with   serious issues, such as war and terrorism
      
d- the voting public prefers to engage in presidential elections rather than local ones

 *Question 5

    Passage 2

    History is one of the chief sources of data for political scientists. When we discuss the politics of the Third French Republic (1871–1940), the growth of presidential power under Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945), and even something as recent as the Cold War (1947–1989), we are studying history. But historians and political scientists look for different things and handle data differently. Typically, historians study one episode in detail, digging up documents, archives, and news accounts on the topic. They have masses of data focused on one point but venture few or no generalizations. Political scientists, on the other hand, begin by looking for generalizations. We may take the findings of historians and compare and contrast them. A historian might do a detailed study of Weimar Germany(1919–1933); a political scientist might put that study alongside studies of France, Italy, and Russia of the same period to see what similarities and dissimilarities can be found. To be sure, some historians do comparative studies;they become de facto political scientists.(from Political Science: An Introduction, Chapter 1)

    The main point of the above passage is 
          
a- political scientists would not study one episode in history in detail
          
b- studying history comparatively is an important part of the work of a political scientist
          
c- historians and political scientists work in similar ways
          
d- some historians become de facto political scientists

* Question 6

    Passage 2

    History is one of the chief sources of data for political scientists. When we discuss the politics of the Third French Republic (1871–1940), the growth of presidential power under Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945), and even something as recent as the Cold War (1947–1989), we are studying history. But historians and political scientists look for different things and handle data differently. Typically, historians study one episode in detail, digging up documents, archives, and news accounts on the topic. They have masses of data focused on one point but venture few or no generalizations. Political scientists, on the other hand, begin by looking for generalizations. We may take the findings of historians and compare and contrast them. A historian might do a detailed study of Weimar Germany(1919–1933); a political scientist might put that study alongside studies of France, Italy, and Russia of the same period to see what similarities and dissimilarities can be found. To be sure, some historians do comparative studies;they become de facto political scientists.(from Political Science: An Introduction, Chapter 1)

    The context clues in the passage suggest that the best definition for comparative is
          
a- based on opinion
          
b- based on evidence
          
c- based on comparison
          
d- to debate


*Question 7

    Passage 2

History is one of the chief sources of data for political scientists. When we discuss the politics of the Third French Republic (1871–1940), the growth of presidential power under Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945), and even something as recent as the Cold War (1947–1989), we are studying history. But historians and political scientists look for different things and handle data differently. Typically, historians study one episode in detail, digging up documents, archives, and news accounts on the topic. They have masses of data focused on one point but venture few or no generalizations. Political scientists, on the other hand, begin by looking for generalizations. We may take the findings of historians and compare and contrast them. A historian might do a detailed study of Weimar Germany(1919–1933); a political scientist might put that study alongside studies of France, Italy, and Russia of the same period to see what similarities and dissimilarities can be found. To be sure, some historians do comparative studies;they become de facto political scientists.(from Political Science: An Introduction, Chapter 1)

The context clues in the passage suggest that the best definition for de facto is

a- in reality or fact
      
b- by law
      
c- by degree
      
d- by comparison


 *Question 8

    Passage 2

    History is one of the chief sources of data for political scientists. When we discuss the politics of the Third French Republic (1871–1940), the growth of presidential power under Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945), and even something as recent as the Cold War (1947–1989), we are studying history. But historians and political scientists look for different things and handle data differently. Typically, historians study one episode in detail, digging up documents, archives, and news accounts on the topic. They have masses of data focused on one point but venture few or no generalizations. Political scientists, on the other hand, begin by looking for generalizations. We may take the findings of historians and compare and contrast them. A historian might do a detailed study of Weimar Germany(1919–1933); a political scientist might put that study alongside studies of France, Italy, and Russia of the same period to see what similarities and dissimilarities can be found. To be sure, some historians do comparative studies; they become de facto political scientists.(from Political Science: An Introduction, Chapter 1)

    Which best describes the pattern of organization used in the above passage?

a- comparison and contrast
          
b- cause and effect
          
c- chronological order
          
d- classification


 *Question 9

    Passage 2

    History is one of the chief sources of data for political scientists. When we discuss the politics of the Third French Republic (1871–1940), the growth of presidential power under Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945), and even something as recent as the Cold War (1947–1989), we are studying history. But historians and political scientists look for different things and handle data differently. Typically, historians study one episode in detail, digging up documents, archives, and news accounts on the topic. They have masses of data focused on one point but venture few or no generalizations. Political scientists, on the other hand, begin by looking for generalizations. We may take the findings of historians and compare and contrast them. A historian might do a detailed study of Weimar Germany(1919–1933); a political scientist might put that study alongside studies of France, Italy, and Russia of the same period to see what similarities and dissimilarities can be found. To be sure, some historians do comparative studies; they become de facto political scientists. (from Political Science: An Introduction, Chapter 1)

    The tone of the above passage is best described as

a- critical and gloomy
          
b- neutral and straightforward
          
c- encouraging and optimistic
          
d- sentimental and dramatic


 *Question 10

    Passage 2

    History is one of the chief sources of data for political scientists. When we discuss the politics of the Third French Republic (1871–1940), the growth of presidential power under Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945), and even something as recent as the Cold War (1947–1989), we are studying history. But historians and political scientists look for different things and handle data differently. Typically, historians study one episode in detail, digging up documents, archives, and news accounts on the topic. They have masses of data focused on one point but venture few or no generalizations. Political scientists, on the other hand, begin by looking for generalizations. We may take the findings of historians and compare and contrast them. A historian might do a detailed study of Weimar Germany(1919–1933); a political scientist might put that study alongside studies of France, Italy, and Russia of the same period to see what similarities and dissimilarities can be found. To be sure, some historians do comparative studies; they become de facto political scientists. (from Political Science: An Introduction, Chapter 1)

    The purpose of the above passage is

a- to debate
          
b- to persuade
          
c- to entertain
          
d- to inform












Read 75 times
2 Replies
Replies
Answer verified by a subject expert
Anonymousrhockeygirl
wrote...
2 months ago
Sign in or Sign up in seconds to unlock everything for free
Q1

Why Americans Are Interested in Politics Again

Q2

to become active again

Q3

straightforward

Q4

the voting public becomes more engaged with the political process when confronted with serious issues, such as war and terrorism

Q5

studying history comparatively is an important part of the work of a political scientist

Q6

based on comparison

Q7

in reality or fact

Q8

comparison and contrast

Q9

neutral and straightforward

Q10

to inform
1

Related Topics

mohamedd Author
wrote...
1 months ago
thank you thank you...
New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  368 People Browsing
 253 Signed Up Today
Related Images
  
 196
  
 132
Your Opinion
Which country would you like to visit for its food?
Votes: 124

Previous poll results: Who's your favorite biologist?