This is the story of the Peace Corps volunteer, Joan Heberger, trying to get a plan together to get water to the village.

http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws/stories/stories.cfm?psid=49&gid=3

Read the story, and I’ll have a GED practice question for it next week.

Here’s the GED social studies for the day… and I mean “day.” A “day” is the time the sun takes to travel around the world (or look like it is, cuz it’s really the Earth going around the sun)… so each part of the world is at a different time of the day. The sun is rising on one side of the world and setting on the other, all the time. At any moment, it’s some time of day at some place in the world. Someplace, it’s 3:00 a.m. right now, and across from that, it’s 3:00 p.m., so it’s like the time travels around the world. Weird, right?

If you go all around the world, you can gain a whole day or lose a whole day, depending on which way you’re going. That’s what used to be called the “circumnavigator’s paradox.” There’s a three-dollar word… circumnavigator. “Circum” is like “circumference” in geometry… around the outside of a circle. And “navigator” is like navigating the direction you’re going, so a “circumnavigator” is someone who goes around the globe… and loses or gains a day. It’s because you’re moving across the world faster than a day goes by. Do you see what I mean? Think about it… like traveling from one time zone to another, you could lose or gain an hour. Traveling through the whole world… you could lose or gain a day. This happens whether people have time zones in place or not!

So, here’s your GED question:

Which direction do you need to travel around the world to arrive on what seems to you is Tuesday, when everyone where you land thinks it’s Monday?

1. North

2. South

3. East

4. West

Okay… a lot of GED test questions don’t need any outside knowledge, but this one does. What do you already know? Why do you lose or gain time traveling around the world? Make a connection between the GED and your real life to answer this one…

To find out more about the GED test and GED test preparation, visit The GED Academy at passGED.com.

And maybe there’ll be stuff about Spain three hundred years ago or something, but the most important thing is figuring out how to think about what you’re reading. That’s why I say, read about anything that interests you! Because you’re learning to read about stuff, learning to learn new information. That’s the most important thing for the GED social science test.

It’s like how I was interested to read about Clara Barton. As I said, you can read about her at: http://www.civilwar.com/content/view/257/53/
Here’s part of what it says about her:

Clara Barton settled in Danville, N.Y., where for several years she was a semi-invalid. In 1877 she wrote a founder of the International Red Cross, offering to lead an American branch of the organization. Thus, at 56 she began a new career.
In 1881 Barton incorporated the American Red Cross, with herself as president. A year later her extraordinary efforts brought about United States ratification of the Geneva Convention. She herself attended conferences of the International Red Cross as the American representative. She was, however, far from bureaucratic in interests. Although wholly individualistic and unlike reformers who worked on programs for social change, she did a great social service as activist and propagandist.

The social studies test might have a reading like that, and probably it’s something you’ve never read about before! Then, there’s a question, and you can probably answer it just by reading the passage carefully. Try it!

Question: According to the information, Clara Barton was most interested in:

1. founding organizations.
2. having an important position.
3. attending conferences.
4. ratifying conventions.
5. social activism.

What do you think?

photo taken by dominic arizona : azfoto.com

• In the early 15th century, the Spanish took control of the island of Hispaniola for its gold, killing many of the indigenous peoples with disease.

• In the 16th century, Africans were brought to the island as slaves.

• Many French pirates made their homes on the western shores of Hispaniola.

• France eventually gained control over the western portion of the island, and many battles for independence were fought until 1804, when independence was won, and the nation was renamed to Haiti.

• In the 20th century, the United states occupied Haiti in an attempt to help stabilize their government. During this time, Haitian Creole was also accepted as an official language of Haiti, particularly in education.

• Throughout the turbulent years of Haiti’s past, many Haitians have left to try and make a better life for themselves in other parts of the Caribbean and North America.

Today, virtually all Haitians speak Haitian Creole while French is used predominately in business and education. A creole language is one that is made up of many other languages. Haitian Creole is the most stable and widely spoken creole language today. Which of the following answers helps to best explain why this is?

1. Haitian Creole has been accepted as an official creole language.
2. Haiti and its language has been influenced by many different foreign cultures throughout the years.
3. Haitians have spread out across the Caribbean and North America, helping to spread the creole language.
4. All of the above.
5. None of the above.

Creole languages sure are interesting! In fact, if you find yourself down in Florida, you can hear Haitian Creole in some places like Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach. The dialects of the south in general are so varied, and I bet it has something to do with the fact that a lot of immigrants come up from places like Haiti, Cuba, and other Caribbean islands.

Ok, so number one says that Haitian Creole has been accepted as an official creole language. Well that’s right for sure! The fifth bullet says that, “Haitian Creole was accepted as an official language of Haiti.” So it’s answer one, right? But I should probably look over the other answers just to be safe.

Number two also seems right. After all, there were originally the indigenous peoples who lived there, then the Spaniards came, then the Africans, then the French, plus pirates lived there and they’re from all over! Finally, the US occupied Haiti, and Haiti’s not even that far away from the United States, so that’s a lot of cultures and languages effecting one place… Hm, let’s keep going.

Number three is definitely right too. The last bullet says that the Haitians have moved to other parts of the Caribbean and North America, and that would definitely help to spread the language, just like how the British spread themselves around a lot too, and English is spoken just about everywhere I think! Though I don’t know if that’s ’cause of the British necessarily or ’cause everyone watches American TV nowadays… But anyway, that seems pretty darn correct.

So it must be number four, ’cause all the first ones were definitely right. And that means number five is definitely wrong. It’s a good thing I looked over the rest of the answers, or else if I were in a real testing situation, I might have just marked number one as correct, then gotten the question wrong. Always remember to read all the answers first so you don’t get tripped up by these kinds of questions.

Keep studying, and good luck!

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

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.