In the above image, what information about the product is most important to the advertisement?

1. It catches a lot of dirt.

2. It cleans quickly.

3. It has bristles made out of nanotubes.

4. It’s red.

5. It’s inexpensive.

Ok, so looking at this ad, right away, the biggest thing I can see is the name, “Speedy Broom.” Also, look at the broom, it’s got speed lines rushing by after it. And finally, the very first bullet point says that it cleans floors in half the time. So before I even read the answers, I’m thinkin’ “this is a fast broom.” Then when I look and see, “it cleans quickly,” I can guess that I’ve already found my answer. But it’s always good to look at the rest.

Number one and number three are both mentioned in the ad: “Nanotube bristles catch more dirt than a conventional broom!” So, we know they’re true, but I think that all that stuff about the nano-bristles catching more dirt and not sticking to hair and dust just supports how fast the broom is. To tell you the truth, I don’t even know what a nanotube bristle is, but that doesn’t matter. It’s obvious that it’s not the main purpose. Otherwise it would be called “Nano-Bristle Broom” or have lots of dirt being swept up in the image, right?

Number four is true ’cause it is red, but that’s not really important in this ad. If it was a blue broom, the ad would still be saying the same thing.

I don’t think number five is right at all. $30 for a broom doesn’t seem very cheap. Maybe for a wild nano-broom with nano-bristles it’s inexpensive, but even so, the price is at the bottom. It is red, which makes it maybe a little important, but I just think that the speed of the broom is the obvious choice here. What do you think?

Keep studying everyone, and have a great holiday season!

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

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.

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 a practice question about restated information:

On June 22, 1941, Germany attacked the Soviet Union with three million soldiers, mainly German. Hitler thought the war with Soviet Russia would end in six months or less. It lasted for four years, getting worse and worse. On the Russian front, where Hitler’s German tyranny fought Stalin’s Russian tyranny, the German army lost. Russia’s win over the Germans changed the course of World War II and helped the Allies–England, Russia, and the U.S.–win the war. From 20 million to 27 million Russian people, both soldiers and civilians, lost their lives.

Which of the following statements is true based on the above paragraph?

A) Three million Soviet soldiers fought the Germans.
B) The war between the Soviet Union and Germany was over in less than six months.c
C) Stalin and Hitler were friends, even though their countries fought each other.
D) Russia’s victory over Germany did not have far-reaching consequences.
E) Over 20 million Russians were killed in the war with Germany.

So, what’s your answer? To answer this question, you need to look for which idea is stated in the passage. A lot of the time, you’ll find some of the words from the passage are repeated. The passage mentions 3 million solderis, six months, and Stalin and Hitler. But the only statement that means the same thing as something in the reading is the last one: “Over 20 million Russians were killed in the war with Germany.” That means the same thing as: “From 20 million to 27 million Russian people, both soldiers and civilians, lost their lives.”

“From 20 million to 27 million” and “Over 20 milion” get the same idea across. So do “Russians” and “Russian people.” Both sentences also say the Russian people died. “Lost their lives” means the same as “were killed.” And, even though this sentence doesn’t say they were killed in the war with Germany, that’s the context. That’s what it means in the paragraph. So, the answer is E.

If you can recognize the same idea said in a different way, you’ll have a valuable skill for the GED test!

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

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.

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.