Later I read about how the Grand Canyon is one of the Seven Natural Wonders of the World. I’ve never seen most of the others, except the Northern Lights, which I once saw on a long haul up to Whitehorse in the Yukon. It was real pretty. Kinda like bright white, greenish clouds, only at night. And they’d kinda shifted and moved around real fast, like there was a giant fan up in space blowing them around. I can definitely see why the Grand Canyon and the Northern Lights are part of the Seven Natural Wonders. I think I’d like to see all the rest someday, even they are all across the globe, like Mount Everest way over there in Asia.

I started looking up some of the other wonders of the world, and found out that there’s a lot of different lists! One of the most popular is the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. That’s got the Pyramids in it, along with a lot of other neat things. Here’s a practice question about one of them that I thought was pretty hard.

The Lighthouse of Alexandria served as a well known landmark on the island of Pharos for a little over a thousand years. It was roughly 383 – 440 feet tall. Mirrors were used in the daytime to reflect the sunlight, and fires were lit at night to direct sailors to the port of Alexandria. Eventually, earthquakes damaged the lighthouse beyond repair, and it was eventually replaced by a fort. However, even today the lighthouse is considered one of the greatest wonders of the ancient world.

Why is the Lighthouse of Alexandria identified as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World?

1. It was one of the tallest buildings of its time.

2. It utilized revolutionary technology.

3. It was a dependable beacon.

4. It attracted many tourists.

5. It was the only building in its time built on an island.

The question includes a picture, so I can see how the lighthouse worked from this. It’s tall, and right on the water with an open area at the top where the light shines out. The question says that the Lighthouse of Alexandria existed as a landmark to show everyone where the port of Alexandria was. So, immediately I can tell that two of the answers are probably correct about the lighthouse itself: it was a dependable beacon, and probably very tall. But I should look at each answer and see if it works with the question.

Number one says it was one of the tallest buildings of its time. Well, it doesn’t say this exactly in the text, but it does make a point of saying how tall it is. So there’s a link to the text, at least. And think about this: The lighthouse IS one of the seven wonders, so you know it has to stand out somehow, and this lighthouse was around 400 feet tall! For an ancient building, that’s pretty darn tall.

Number two says that it had some pretty great technology. This could be it! I mean, I don’t really know when mirrors were invented, and maybe using fire as a beacon was new? It’s hard to tell which makes more sense, that the lighthouse was really tall, or that it used new technology. But if I start thinking about other things that get attention for being a “wonder” like the Grand Canyon, or the pyramids, or the Great Wall of China, these are all things that are really big. So, I can use this pattern to assume that the lighthouse was named a “wonder” for the same reason: because it was big.

As for it being a dependable beacon, I bet it probably was! But would that make it a wonder? There were thousands of things that were probably dependable back then. Every lighthouse had to be dependable, or it wouldn’t be a very good lighthouse. That just doesn’t seem like a good reason to make something one of only seven wonders in all the world. And the same goes for number 5. There’s thousands of islands in the world too, with plenty of buildings on them, so it’s unlikely that either of these a reasons to make it a wonder. Also, the text doesn’t really make a big deal about the island, or about how it was a beacon. It mostly talks in detail about exactly how tall it was, and how it used fire and mirrors to attract attention.

Four seems sort of correct, because it probably did attract a lot of tourists, but it did so BECAUSE it was amazing. The tourists didn’t MAKE it one of the Seven Wonders. Also, the text doesn’t say anything at all about tourists, so this probably isn’t right. I think I’d have to go with #1. You’ve got to use the information you know about other things in the world that stand out. They’re usually almost exactly the same as other things just like them, like the Great Wall of China is just a wall when you come down to it. And The Grand Canyon is just a hole. It’s the size of them that makes them amazing, so I can guess that the same was true for the Lighthouse of Alexandria. But I’m kinda sad that it fell down. In fact, just about all the Seven Ancient Wonders fell or burned down eventually, except for the pyramids, so I’ll never get to see them. I guess I’d better get moving on visiting all the natural wonders before they fall down or fill up or get condos built on top of them!

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

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.