Visual Representations - GED Social Studies

Just because Andrew Jackson is dressed as the King of England does not mean there is any evidence to suggest he was born in Britain, supported the British war effort, or was friends with the British King. Nor does it directly suggest that Andrew Jackson did not enjoy much popular support; however, in his hand Jackson is holding a piece of paper that says “veto,” which suggests he was not afraid to use the Presidential veto when given the opportunity.

In the cartoon Jackson is dressed as a King, an authoritarian ruler, and standing on a ripped-up copy of the United States’ Constitution. The author of this cartoon is clearly suggesting that Jackson should not be considered a truly democratic leader, but as something approaching a totalitarian ruler.

In this cartoon Andrew Jackson, one-time President of the United States, is shown dressed as a King and standing atop ripped-up copies of the United States’ Constitution and the Internal Improvements Bill. The headline reads “Born to command.” The tone is therefore meant to be mocking and ironic. The author is suggesting that Jackson believes he is born to command and thinks of himself as a ruler closer to a King than a President.

The cartoon is titled Join or die and shows a snake divided up into a series of segments. It is one of the oldest and most famous political cartoons in American history and was drawn by Benjamin Franklin to encourage the various colonies of America to join together to ensure their greater collective strength. It is therefore primarily urging unity.

Each of the segments of the snake is labelled. The fact that they are labelled as “NY,” “SC,” “NJ” etc. suggests that they are meant to represent the states; however, this is not an option you are given so you have to consider the fact that the cartoon was created during the colonial era when the states were not yet states, but colonies. The correct answer is therefore that the different segments of the snake represent the colonies.

The primary meaning behind this cartoon is that the use of child labor represents an affront to American society and to American values. The cartoon depicts a map of the United States with a big "blot" or "stain" on the map represented by child labor. The man is most likely meant to be Uncle Sam, looking disdainfully at the use of child labor.

The cartoon is centered around the use of child labor in the United States. Answering this question requires you to know a little bit about this topic, or at least enough about the various eras mentioned to be able to make a logical guess. Of course, in modern times, the use of child labor is banned in the United States; however, during the industrial revolution it was exceedingly common to find children, particularly boys, as young as eight or ten working in factories. This is generally true of all the western nations during the industrial revolution. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, and in the early twentieth century, there was a massive social backlash against the use of child labor. It played an important role in the Progressive movement of the first two decades of the twentieth century.

The man shown looking disdainfully towards the map of the United States is Uncle Sam. He appears throughout American history as a personification ("human representation") of the American Republic. He is particularly prominent in political cartoons and government propaganda. His counterpart in England is called John Bull.

You are told that Britain is made part of the Roman Empire in 43 C.E. so this is the first conquest. Then the Saxons and Angles arrive in 449 C.E. so this is the second conquest. The Vikings raid London in 842 C.E. so this is the third conquest. And, finally, the Normans arrive under William in 1066 C.E. and complete the timeline.

You are told that the Venerable Bede completed his history of the British Isles in 730 C.E., so you are looking for an event that took place after this date—because Bede could not possibly have written the history of something that had yet to happen. The coronation of Cnut the Great, in 1016 C.E., is the only possible answer that occurs after 730 C.E.

The only answer choice that this timeline definitely supports is the argument that the British Isles were subject to numerous waves of conquest and invasion. First the Romans, then the Saxons and Angles, then the Vikings, and then the Normans arrived on British shores in the time period shown. You cannot reasonably state that the Normans reigned the longest as you are not told when their dominion ends. You might be tempted to say that the Romans were foolish to try to conquer the British Isles, given that they had to withdraw their forces eventually, but this is revisionist history, and besides the use of the word "foolish" in a historical context is always dubious. There is no evidence to suggest that the Angles and Saxons were particularly bloodthirsty, nor is there any to suggest that the Vikings were unable to establish complete control of the British Isles.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Spanish and English fought many conflicts in the New World, nor is there any evidence to suggest that the English settlements in the New World were not successful. Additionally, just because the timeline does not mention any German colonies, you cannot necessarily conclude that that means the Germans never settled in the New World. Finally, because Spain established a colony in San Francisco at the same time as America was gaining its independence, you cannot conclude that the independence of the United States marked the end of European colonialism in the New World. You can, however, conclude that the Spanish were dominant in the New World during the first wave of European colonialism. They were the first to arrive in the Caribbean; Hernan Cortes conquered Mexico for the Spanish shortly thereafter, and the Spanish destroyed one of the first French settlements in St. Kitts suggesting they were the dominant regional power.

The Spanish colony in Florida was settled in 1565. After this the English colony in Jamestown was established in 1607, the French colony in Quebec in 1608, the Dutch colony in New Amsterdam in 1625, and American independence in 1776.

If the document was indeed written by a settler of Jamestown it must have been written, at the earliest, in 1607. This means it can be no older than 408 years, otherwise it could not possibly describe the events of 1607.

Let us approach this question by disproving one statement at a time. Firstly, just because the timeline does not feature any inventions between the 15th and 19th centuries does not mean nothing was being invented. Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that the telephone could only have been invented in the United States. Thirdly, just because penicillin was discovered shortly before the completion of the Manhattan Project does not mean they were related. Finally, the invention of the compass came almost four hundred years before the era of European colonialism. The only statement that is likely to be true is that Chinese society around the 10th century was particularly innovative. After all Chinese society gave us gunpowder, fireworks, and the compass in short order.

The movable-type printing press, invented in Germany about 1450, allowed books to be copied and printed by machine for the first time in European history. Before that, any book or manuscript had to be written and copied by hand; therefore, a printed manuscript found in France must date from later than 1450.

The purpose of this table is to show the population of various countries in the world in 2008 and what the projected population will be in 2025. You likely know that China and India are the two most populous nations on Earth, so it stands to reason that these eight countries were picked because they are the eight most heavily populated countries.

In 2008, when the data in this chart comes from, the fifth most populous country is Brazil with 192 million people; however, by 2025 the population of Brazil is projected to be at 223 million, whereas the population of Pakistan is projected to be at 226 million. Therefore, in 2025, the population of Pakistan is projected to be fifth on this list and Brazil sixth.

If you look at the table you can see that the four most populous countries in 2008 are China, India, United States, and Indonesia. The data suggests that those countries will remain the four most populated in 2025. Indonesia, the fourth most, is projected to have 273 million people. About 50 million more than Brazil and Pakistan, which follow it.

All of the lowest figures in this chart are for African countries, so it is reasonable to conclude that people in Africa have a much lower life expectancy than the rest of the world. Because Japan is first, you might have been tempted to answer that people in Asia have a much higher life expectancy, but you are also shown that China and India are much lower in the table. Similarly, although many European nations appear near the top of the table, the fact that they are all surpassed by Japan tells you that Europe cannot be said to have a higher life expectancy than the rest of the world.