Here’s a good GED social studies article… it talks about how according to one stud, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, even though a lot of the people have medical insurance: Medical bills prompt more than 60% of U.S. bankruptcies (CNN) … now, how bout a GED practice question about it?

The study may overestimate the number of bankruptcies caused by medical bills yet underestimate the financial burden of health care on American families, because most people struggle along but don’t end up declaring bankruptcy, according to Cunningham.

“Bankruptcy is the most extreme or final step for people who are having problems paying medical bills,” he says. “Medical bills and medical costs are an issue that can very easily and in pretty short order overwhelm a lot families who are on otherwise solid financial ground, including those with private insurance.”

Which of the following is the best conclusion based on Cunningham’s viewpoint?

1) Health care financial problems can be solved by more families having private insurance.

2) No bankruptcies are truly caused by medical expenses.

3) Families that incur high medical expenses usually have unstable finances.

4) No study could accurately estimate the contribution of health care expenses to bankruptcy.

5) Private insurance alone is not a complete solution to the financial burden of health care costs.

So, have you thought about the question? What do you think is the right answer? Read more to find out how I approached it…

This question asks you to make a conclusion… that’s something that you can logically say is true, based on the facts or information you’re given. In this case, you’ve got to make a conclusion based on someone’s opinion. So, whether you believe him or not, you’ve got to say which idea is best supported by what he says. Which one would he believe?

The first one says that private insurance solves health care financial problems. Well, if you look at what the quote says, this Cunningham says medical expenses can overwhelm people EVEN IF they have private insurance. Well, that means private insurance isn’t really the solution, at least as far as what Cunningham thinks. Remember, this is about Cunningham’s point of view, based on what he says.

The second one says no bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. That’s not right. Cunningham says the study may overestimate the number of bankruptcies caused by medical expenses, and that means he probably thinks that there are some, even if there aren’t as many as the study says.

The third answer says families with high medical expenses usually have unstable finances. But Cunningham says medical expenses can overwhelm families “who are on otherwise solid financial ground.” That means they don’t have unstable finances. This isn’t the right conclusion at all.

The fourth answer says no study could accurately estimate the number of bankruptcies caused by medical expenses. Well, Cunningham seems to think that this study doesn’t accurately estimate them, but that’s not the same thing. He doesn’t say anything about no study being able to be accurate.

The last answer looks like the right one to me. “Private insurance alone is not a complete solution to the financial burden of health care costs.” This is sort of the opposite of the first answer. For the same reason the first answer is wrong, this one is right. Cunningham says that even people with insurance can be overwhelmed by medical expenses, and a logical conclusion from that is that private insurance isn’t the whole answer. Do you see how a conclusion follows from other information?

Good GED studyin’, and keep readin’ the news!

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit the GED Academy at http://www.passGED.com.

So, what do you think about that? Whole grains like Cheerios can be good for your cholesterol… so is it wrong for Cheerios to say that it lowers your cholesterol? Does it work? And how does anyone know it works? Is Cheerios really claiming to be a drug? I don’t know the answer for sure… I guess I’ve got to give some thought to this! Meanwhile, here’s a practice question about the article…

The article says:

The FDA said ads promoting Cheerios as a drug that can “lower your cholesterol 4 percent in six weeks” violates the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

The federal agency claims the language on the Cheerios box suggests the cereal is designed to prevent or treat heart disease. Regulators say that only FDA-approved drugs are allowed to make such claims.

So, the question is, based on this passage, which of the following advertisements would be illegal, according to the FDA?

1) An ad that says a lipstick can make your lips plumper for 2-3 hours.

2) An public service ad that says regular exercise can build heart health over several months.

3) An ad that says a soy-sunflower seed health bar lowers blood pressure in 3 weeks.

4) An ad that says a dark chocolate candy snack can be part of a heart-healthy diet.

5) An ad that says that milk provides vitamin D and calcium, important nutrients for heart health.

So, which did you choose? This is an application question. You need to take the problem the FDA identifies with the Cheerio advertisement, and apply the same principle or idea to other ads. So, what’s the Cheerios ad really doing wrong, according to the FDA? It’s promising a specific medical result. It doesn’t just say Cheerios has whole-grain oats, it says Cheerios lowers cholesterol in 6 weeks. The answer that’s closest says that the health bar lowers blood pressure in 3 weeks. That’s claiming it does something medicinal. I’d say, it’s answer 3.

Good luck with your GED studying!

Here’s an article about what happened on the BBC, “Iraqi shoe-thrower ‘was beaten.” Basically, Bush went to speak in Iraq, and at a news conference, a writer threw his shoes at Bush. Now, the guy’s been arrested, and he says he was beaten. The BBC article says there’s evidence he has been beaten… for throwing his shoes at the president.

Now, I think this is a kind of complicated issue. You remember talking about freedom of speech and the Bill of Rights? Well, that is just the U.S. Constitution, of course, but I think freedom of speech is something people everywhere should have. But throwing shoes is violence (kind of) and violence shouldn’t be protected. Should it? Or was it really violence? Here are some questions I had about what happened, to think about:

Is it a bigger crime to throw shoes at a president than at anyone else? Why?

Is the journalist being punished for his political beliefs?

What would have happened if someone had thrown shoes at Saddam Hussein? How would your reaction be different?

Okay, I’ve got a political cartoon, too! By Latuff, an artist in Brazil. Here’s the link to his blog: http://tales-of-iraq-war.blogspot.com/2008/12/pathetic-end-of-bush-era.html

Here’s a GED practice question for you: What’s this cartoon saying about the shoe-throwing incident?

1) The reporter threw his shoe because of something Bush said at the news converence.

2) The reporter represents Iraq’s dislike of Bush, and Iraqis think Bush will go down in history as bad.

3) Iraquis want Bush out of office and into history’s trash, and the reporter thought throwing his shoe would help get Bush out of office.

4) The reporter throwing the shoe was really just a game, like a carnival game where you dunk someone.

5) None of the above.

What do you think? The best answer is 2. The cartoon shows someone labeled “Iraq” throwing a shoe. That means, it’s not just talking about the reporter. It’s talking about the people of Iraq in general. And “Iraq” is throwing Bush into “History’s Trash.” The Iraqis wouldn’t think that throwing the shoe would get Bush out of office sooner (that’ll happen January 20, no matter what). No, throwing Bush in the trash is showing what people think of him. The best answer is 2.

So what do you think of all this? Try to relate it to some of the GED social studies ideas you’ve been studying.

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit The GED Academy at http://www.passGED.com.

The GED social studies test includes questions that ask you to tell the difference between a fact (something that’s definitely true and that you can check out in other sources to make sure it’s true), and an opinion (something a writer thinks or believes based on evidence and values). Sometimes it’s difficult to know which is which, in part because they’re often mixed together.

Here’s an example. This is from a political blog on The Washington Post newspaper website, called The Fix. The article is called “What’s Next for McCain?”

The scheduled meeting today between President-elect Barack Obama and his vanquished Republican rival John McCain is more about symbolism than substance, but it raises an intriguing question about what the future holds for the Arizona senator.

Prior to running for president this year, McCain was generally regarded as one of a handful of senators — of either partisan stripe — willing to work across the aisle to broker compromises on major issues of the day. Campaign finance reform is the most lasting example, but others — including his leadership role in the “Gang of 14″ — also cropped up regularly over McCain’s past decade of work in the Senate.

Which of these phrases indicates an opinion, rather than a fact?

A)  scheduled meeting today

B)  Republican rival

C)  more about symbolism than substance

D)  running for president this year

E)   leadership role in the “Gang of 14″

What do you think? If this question was on the GED test, could you answer it?

Which choice tells you what the writer thinks, not something in the outside world that you could check out. McCain’s “leadership role” in the “Gang of 14″ is something you could check out and be certain of. That he ran for president this year–well, I’d say that’s a fact!

A “scheduled meeting today” is also a fact. If it’s on the calendar, it’s scheduled! “Republican rival”… the word “rival” just means someone you’re competing against, you know, who you’re up against. I’d say it’s a fact that McCain competed against Obama! Definitely rivals.

That leaves “more about symbolism than substance.” Could you really check that out? Is it a fact, something the writer knows? It sounds like an opinion, a conclusion the writer’s come to. Do you see what I mean? It’s what he thinks about the meeting, not a specific thing that’s definitely true about the meeting.

Telling facts from opinions on the GED test won’t be too hard… as long as you have a good idea what makes a fact, and what makes an opinion.

Good GED studying!

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit The GED Academy at http://www.passGED.com.

Socialism: Socialism is an economic system where the government controls major portions of the economy, for example health care. Notice how lately, people have been saying that pumping money into the banks means “socializing” or “nationalizing” them? Well, it’s because the government is buying parts of the banks. And if the government owns the banks, a socialist banking system… but that’s not really what’s going on. The government is not buying controlling shares, so it doesn’t really own the banks… just a piece of them. And they’re hoping to get out soon!

Capitalism: Capitalism is an economic idea, that businesses should be privately owned, and through competition and supply and demand, the best businesses will survive and the economy will thrive. That’s the basic idea for the U.S. Unfortunately, we’ve been seeing that you can’t have capitalism without any regulations… unless you’re willing to live through the big failures! That’s the question… should we just let big banks fail, because it’s all part of the capitalist system?

Communism: Communism is a tough one. Karl Marx first had the idea of communism, a society where all the economic systems would be controlled by the people. But “people” translates into “government” in real life. So, communism and socialism tend to get mixed up. In communist countries, the government is controlled by one political party, and the economy is controlled by the government. Think of it as extreme socialism… more government control. The idea is to make a society that’s more equal and better for everyone, but it doesn’t seem to work out that way, to me!

Fascism: Fascism is a political leader or party who tightly controls a government, without any checks and balances. Fascism and communism start to sound a bit alike, right? But fascism is more political and less economic. The government has control of everything, and often there’s oppression and denying people rights. A fascist government is totalitarian, often relying on a dictator. The government gets absolute power, and usually uses a strong military to enforce it! Not a good idea, if you ask me.

So, those are some important -isms to keep in mind on the GED social studies test…

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit The GED Academy at http://www.passGED.com.

One of the things that you see with all the election news, that’s also on the GED, is charts and graphs. There’s maps of the U.S. with red states and blue states, and all kinds of pie charts and line graphs, all trying to tell us what’s going on with the election.

Well, let’s see if we can make some sense of all the charts and graphs for the GED. Here’s a kinda complicated one, from a poll-tracking website called Princeton Election Consortium:

So, what’s this graph trying to tell you? The first thing I look at with charts and graphs is the labels. The left-hand side says “Obama EV”… I know from the website that what they mean is electoral college votes… and a presidential candidate needs 270 electoral college votes (that’s votes from different states) to win. So the red line across the graph is the number of votes needed to win. If the black line is above the red line, Obama wins. If the black line is below the red line, McCain wins. Pretty simple, right?

Oh, and the bottom of the chart shows months. That means, this graph is showing how the race has changed over time. You can see that in April and June, McCain seemed to have enough votes to win… now it’s switched.

So, what’s the gray area? Well, polls have a margin of error. That means, they don’t tell us 100% accurately how people will vote. So, no one’s 100% sure of the results. If you look at the graph title, it says, “95% confidence interval.” The gray area represents a confidence interval… the result will likely be in the gray area, with the black line being the most likely result.

This chart has one more element… some labels that show when different events happened in the campaign. That’s what I’ve got a GED practice question about… and here it is:

Based on the graph, which of the following statement best sums up the effects of the first debate?

1)  The debate likely reinforced an upward trend for Obama.

2)  The debate likely caused a decrease in Obama’s upward-moving numbers.

3)  The debate likely had a similar effect to McCain’s celebrity ad.

4)  The debate likely caused an upward trend for McCain.

5)  All of the above.

So, what do you think? This is an analysis question, because it asks you to make an interpretation of the graph, but if you understand the graph (comprehension), you’ll have a pretty good idea of the answer. Let’s look at what happens on the chart.

First, you have to find the debate. It’s where the chart says “debate #1″. You should look at what’s happening to the line before and after “debate #1″. Before, the line is moving upward, in a sort of jaggy way (up and down, but mostly up.) What does up mean? It’s better for Obama, because it means Obama’s got more votes.

After “debate #1″, the line goes up a lot. Very good for Obama. So, which answer reflects this best? Answer 4 says the upward trend is for McCain, and that’s not right. It’s better for Obama. Answer 3 says it’s similar to what happened with the “celebrity ad,” but that’s not right. If you look at the chart after the celebrity ad, the line goes down, not up.

Answer 2 says the debate caused a decrease (a lessening) in the upward moving numbers. Well, the numbers were moving up. But they didn’t seem to decrease (move up less) after the debate. In fact, they seemed to move up more.

Answer 1 seems like the best choice. The numbers were already going up (an upward trend) for Obama, and after the debate they went up even more. That seems to show the debate reinforced (continued, made bigger) the upward trend.

Good luck with your GED! And be sure to get out and vote, to participate in some real social studies.

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit The GED Academy at http://www.passGED.com.

I’ve been trying to figure out what’s going on, and here it is, as I understand it.

So, there’ve been lots of funny mortgage loans, that banks offered to help people buy houses. Because the banks make money off loans, they want to sell as many loans as possible, right? So, there’ve been loans with small payments, but you’re not really paying all the interest on the loan plus some principle (the original loan amount), like usual, cuz the payments are so low. So, your loan balance gets bigger instead of getting smaller, if you just pay the minimum. That’s one example.

Well, so a bunch of people who wanted houses got sold these loans. Some of them thought they’d be able to resell their house later, or get a different loan, to be able to pay off their mortgage.

Okay, well, the price of houses didn’t keep going up and up and up. Because eventually, prices start going down. That meant, people were in trouble. They thought they could refinance, but they couldn’t. Maybe their payments changed because of their mortgage. Well. That meant lots of people couldn’t make their payments–people like you, maybe.

Then, what happens?

The banks don’t get paid. After selling all those loans, now the banks aren’t getting money back. And they’ve got bad debts on the books. That means, banks are short of cash. Some of them can’t pay their debts. And others are worried about making new loans, to businesses or other banks. So, banks can’t borrow money, either. Uh-oh. Money shortage. You know how that is from your own life.

Banks started to go bankrupt. Stocks crashed. Now, the government wants to step in to try to solve the problem. The idea is, the government will buy up the bad debt. Maybe they can help people be able to pay off their mortgages and make some of the money back. Of course, there’s lots of talk about what should go into the plan, like stopping big executives from walking off with a pile of dough.

So, here’s a GED question about this big mess!

According to supply and demand, what’s the most likely reason that housing prices started to fall?

A)� There was more demand for houses than supply.

B) � There was more supply for houses than demand.

C)� Supply and demand kept changing.

D)� There was too much demand for mortgages.

E)� Supply and demand do not affect price.

Got the answer?

It’s A B. (Thanks, Marie–my typo.) Supply and demand is one of the basic ideas of economics, and here it is at work. When their are too many houses and not enough buyers for them, the prices go down. And eventually, you get to that point, you know? That’s just what happens. People keep building houses, because lots of people are buying them. But, eventually, all the people looking to buy houses have bought them… or the prices get too high… and you have more sellers than buyers. More supply than demand. That’s when prices go down.

So, I’ll be keeping an eye on what’s going on to prepare for GED social studies… I tell you, this real-world stuff is the best studying.

Good studying!

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit The GED Academy at http://www.passGED.com.

Well, this is about the GED, right? So let’s get to the GED practice question. Here it is:

Yet a proposal by Democrats to release oil from an emergency reserve has been rejected by the White House as a gimmick that won’t reduce prices.

If Congress passed a law that said oil from the emergency reserve had to be released right away, Bush could veto the law, and reject it. Vetoing the law would be:

1) Bush using an executive ban

2) Bush using checks and balances on the Congress

3) The separation of powers between houses of Congress

4)  Congress using their power over the President

5) Bush trying to expand the power of the President to make laws

Did you figure out the answer? It’s 2… Bush is using “checks and balances.” Vetoes are a kind of “check” the President has against Congress… a power he can use to balance the power of Congress.

It’s not 1, because an ‘executive ban’ means just that the President ordered his branch of government not to do something… that’s not what he’s doing with a veto. He’s stopping a law.

The answer’s not 3 either.  It’s about separation of powers, all right, but between the President and Congress, not between the different houses of Congress.

Answer 4’s not right because it’s the President using his power over Congress, not vice versa.

And answer 5’s not right, either.  The right of the veto is in the Constitution. That’s not an expansion of the President’s power… It’s not giving the President new power, just using the power he already has from the Constitution.

So, did you get it right? This is the kind of GED social studies that’s going on all around us every day… and it’s especially in the news right now with the elections and with all the problems with the economy… say, maybe I should do some economics questions about the housing crisis. What do you think? How’s the economy effecting you? Are you having trouble with your mortgage? If you want, you can write in about what’s happening to you with the economy, and maybe I can give you some more information… something to link your real life with the GED social studies.

Good studying!

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit The GED Academy at http://www.passGED.com or call 1-888-880-2164.

I know we talked a little about the “separation of powers.” That’s an important idea. It means that the government is divided up into different parts, so that each part has different kinds of power. The Congress has some power… the President has some power… the Supreme Court has some power. No single person or group has all the power. And part of the idea is what’s called “checks and balances.” That means that each part of the government has some power over the other parts. They can try to control each other. So, if someone tries to take too much power… someone else is there to stop them. That’s the idea!

So  how’s this GED social studies idea in the news? I read this article, called “Bush lifts oil drilling ban, wants Congress to act.” Right in the headline, you can see it’s about two of the branches of government: Bush is the President, so he’s in charge of the “executive” branch. Congress is in charge of the “legislative” branch…the branch to make laws. If you read the article, Bush changed the orders for the executive branch. He says it’s okay to drill for oil off the coast of the U.S.

But, the President doesn’t make laws! He just carries out laws. So, it’s still against the law to drill for oil on the U.S. coast. The Congress makes the laws… and Bush wants Congress to change the law, but he can’t MAKE them change it. That’s checks and balances working. The Congress is stopping Bush from getting what he wants. BUT, Bush still has power. He can use his political power to try to get Congress to do what he wants.  That’s what he’s doing by lifting the “executive ban” on drilling oil. He says, “Hey, I’m not the guy stopping us from using coastal oil! It’s the Congress! They’re causing the high oil prices.” Whether that’s true or not, it’s a kind of force Bush is trying to use on the Congress. Wow, separation of powers and checks and balances cause a lot of politicking!

So here’s a practice GED question to try out. In the article, it says:

Yet a proposal by Democrats to release oil from an emergency reserve has been rejected by the White House as a gimmick that won’t reduce prices.

If Congress passed a law that said oil from the emergency reserve had to be released right away, Bush could veto the law, and reject it. Vetoing the law would be:

1) Bush using an executive ban

2) Bush using checks and balances on the Congress

3) The separation of powers between houses of Congress

4)  Congress using their power over the President

5) Bush trying to expand the power of the President to make laws

What do you think? I’ll have the answer next time. Good GED studying for now! And be sure to read the news for examples of how GED social studies is happening all the time!

Here was the question:

Which of the following rights from the Bill of Rights does the Supreme Court decision give the prisoners at Guantanamo?

A.   the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion and to peaceably assemble

B.   the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms

C.   the 4th Amendment right to be protected against unreasonable searches

D.   the 5th Amendment right to not be forced to incriminate yourself

E.   the 5th Amendment right to due process

The Bill of Rights is in GED questions a lot, because it’s an important part of U.S. history and government. So, it helps to know a little bit about what the bill of right says. In this question, it asks you to do something called “application.” You need to take one thing, and see how it applies in an example. The Supreme Court ruling gives prisoners a right to a hearing before a judge… so which amendment is a hearing before a judge an example of?

To answer right, you need to figure out what the wording in the amendments is trying to say. Freedom of religion and peaceable assembly are two rights…one is about religion, which doesn’t have to do with getting a hearing or trial. The other is the right to get together, like at a protest march. That doesn’t have to do with a trial, either.

Answer B says the right to “bear arms.” Well, ‘bear’ means to carry, and ‘arms’ means guns. That’s the other Supreme Court decision recently! It’s the right to have a gun. So, it doesn’t apply. No one’s giving the prisoners guns!

Answer C says “protected against unreasonable searches.” Well, the prisoners aren’t getting protected from being searched, so that’s not the answer. This one is about getting search warrants!

Answer D is about not incriminating yourself… that means, you don’t have to be a witness at your trial, and you don’t have to tell the police anything. It does have SOMETHING to do with a trial, but that’s not what the prisoners at Guantanamo want. They want to have hearings or trials to see if they’re being held fairly or unfairly. That’s not anything to do with whether they testify.

Answer E…that’s the right answer! “Due process.” That means, a good process to show that the government has evidence before arresting someone, and also that someone gets a fair hearing and trial. In other words, a good process for arresting and trying someone for a crime. That applies to what the prisoners at Guantanamo want.

There’s the answer! Did you get it right? Keep watching the news…you’ll probably learn some important things for your GED test from what’s happening right now!

For more information about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit The GED Academy at http://www.passGED.com.