1. C
A compound microscope, unlike a simple one, uses several lenses based in the eyepiece and in the objective. The first one was built in the Netherlands in 1590, in the spectacles shop of Zacharias Janssen, though this has been disputed by his rival, another spectacle maker named Hans Lippershey. Even Galileo Galilei built his own version after seeing an exhibition. Regardless, it is almost certain that the Netherlands was the site of the invention, given its advanced work with glass at the time. The microscope was refined for the next 200 years by various people around Europe, particularly the French in the 19th century.
2. A
Of the four choices, only Tycho Brahe lived and worked prior to the invention and adoption of the compound microscope; furthermore, he was an astronomer, and would’ve had zero use for the invention. The other men mentioned were either scientists (Hooke, van Leeuwenhoek) or naturalists (Kingsley) who most definitively used the microscope across the following centuries. Van Leeuwenhoek in particular spent so much time working behind the microscope that he has become known as “the father of microbiology.”
3. D
Working at the Technical University of Berlin, Ruska and Knoll developed the first prototype of the electron microscope in the early 1930s. The work was carried on at Siemens, but the lab was destroyed in an air raid during World War II; after the war ended, Ruska continued refining the invention there, presenting it at several conferences in the 1950s. Choices (A) and (C) were imaginary and never happened. Regarding (B), while it was true that philosophes used the deductive method in their Enlightenment salons, this doesn’t mean that scientists stopped using the compound microscope.
4. A
The people who counted the dead were known as “Searchers of the dead.” These Searchers were underpaid—it being a highly unpopular job—but they were nonetheless tasked with counting the victims of the plague and verifying the cause of death. Whether they did so thoroughly is up for debate, and there is historical evidence that they did not. The other three choices were common obstacles that the Searchers faced in their task.
5. B
The 19th century created Europe’s modern public health infrastructure. It saw many improvements in public sanitation, such as the end of public pit toilets that contaminated sources of drinking water. It wasn’t just the plague, either: typhus, cholera, yellow fever—all of which had spread quickly in the crowded streets of Europe—were reduced. Choice (A) occurred in the 20th century, and there is no evidence to support (C) or (D).
6. C
Note the word naturally. Families traditionally had large numbers of children, six or more, because the mortality rate was so high. Having a large number of children guaranteed that at least one or two would survive into adulthood. With the reduction of plagues in the 19th century, families no longer needed as many children, because more were guaranteed to survive. Children also became a financial liability as the cost of living grew higher in urban European areas. Choice (D) is half right; while there was a strong faith in the Catholic Church, it didn’t exist across all of Europe—the Protestant Revolution had begun growing almost two hundred years before this plague—and likewise there is no evidence that people had faith in the priesthood to prevent such occurrences.
7. C
The practice of quarantine has been long and controversial in European history. During the Black Death outbreak in Italy, infected ships were required to spend 40 days in isolation before their passengers and crew were allowed to go ashore. Because the Italian phrase for 40 days is “quaranta giorni,” this expression was eventually modified to quarantine. The controversial part of quarantine regards the Jewish community, which suffered attacks and blame for the epidemics because of its own relative isolation within Christian cities.
8. A
The answer should reflect divisions among social classes. Wealthy supporters of King Charles II were able to escape London during this epidemic, either to their country homes or to the houses of relatives elsewhere. As a result, the deaths were almost entirely among the lower classes, who couldn’t afford to leave. Choice (B) was political, and (C) is only hints at class divisions. Choice (D) describes attire that was used primarily in Italy and France. Note: Unlike plagues, fires burn equally, and the Great Fire of London—which occurred just a few years later—devastated the middle and upper classes.
9. C
The fin de siècle period of French history occurred during the decade of the 1890s. Literally meaning “end of cycle,” it was a period known for its colorful posters—but also for its anxiety over imagined cataclysmic upheavals that were surely lurking around the corner. (In fact, they were; World War I devastated the continent less than 20 years later.) Choices (A) and (B) occurred much earlier, and (D) occurred much later.
10. B
Ennui is a feeling of listlessness and dissatisfaction that arises from a lack of meaningful purpose or excitement. Subjectivism refers to the belief in the absence of absolute moral truths—in other words, the sense that nothing exists outside of our own selves. Both of these ideas were very much in keeping with the end-of-the-century wariness and anxiety, and as a result the French people occupied themselves with parties and pleasures of the flesh, which Choubrac’s posters (as well as other posters of the time) reflect.
11. A
The Belle Époque is defined as the long period of French history that existed from the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 to the outbreak of World War II in 1914 (in essence, between German invasions of France). Eliminate (B). The Third French Republic lasted even longer, from 1871 to 1940, so eliminate (C). Symbolism existed throughout the second half of the 19th century, so eliminate (D). Only Vichy France did not coincide with this era, as it describes the period of cooperation between French leaders and the German Nazis during World War II.
12. B
If you’ve taken a biology class, you already know that Carl Linnaeus created a system of rank-based classification of biological organisms: kingdom, class, order, genera, species. Abraham Werner wasn’t a biologist, but he was mineralologist, and surely had known and used Linnaean taxonomy in his work. In this passage, he has applied those same techniques to create a systematic classification of colors.
13. A
Classification and order of the natural world—in the attempt to find universal natural laws—is one of the hallmarks of the scientific era. (Others include the scientific method and inductive reasoning.) Many historians officially mark the beginning of the scientific era to the founding in 1660 of the Royal Society, which is the oldest scientific institution in the world. The Enlightenment didn’t concern itself with natural laws, and neoclassicism was an artistic and architectural movement, so eliminate (B) and (C). Neoplatonism is a quasi-scientific branch of inquiry that mixes transcendentalism and mysticism, so eliminate (D).
14. D
The theory of evolutionary taxonomy was Darwin’s greatest contribution to the system of scientific classification. However, he wasn’t the only one pushing for this; many other scientists, both before and after, attempted to reconcile the theory of evolution with the rigid categories of Linnaean taxonomy, including Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Robert Chambers, and Thomas Henry Huxley. The other three choices are all far out of scope or misinterpreted.
15. B
When asked about what can be assumed, always play it safe and choose the safest answer. There is no evidence that Werner was wrong about anything, so eliminate (A). Likewise, there is no evidence that an individual could or could not adequately cover all of color theory, so eliminate (C). Eliminate (D); no technological advancements in optical theory are discussed, and you wouldn’t be expected to know about something that specific from outside knowledge. The safest answer is a restatement of the simple idea that scientists are always searching for new knowledge.
16. B
In 17th-century Europe, the rise of the middle class had just begun, and the aristocrats were still in power across the continent. The nobility maintained their wealth and their power through an ancient feudal arrangement: the nobles owned and occupied large tracts of rural land, surrounded by peasants whom they permitted to farm the earth. Italy, however, was the lone exception to this rule—the aristocrats of the Italian peninsula were urbanized. They typically lived in large city mansions (palazzi), many of which have been converted into museums today.
17. C
Bravery in battle (A) was nice, and so was painting or carving something extraordinary (B), but neither of these accomplishments was a ticket to the upper classes. In fact, those pursuits were done in service to the upper classes. The nobility had achieved their position the old-fashioned way: either by inheriting it (quite common) or by seeing a family member become promoted to the rank of cardinal. (Or, best of all, having a relative become a pope!) Choice (D), amassing a fortune, was by itself not enough to enter the aristocracy—remember that European nobility always looked down upon the “new money” of the merchant class, the nouveau riche.
18. C
The word doge (pronounced dow-zh) is related to the English word duke; both come from the Latin word dux, meaning “to lead.” Genoa and Venice, who were great rivals, had both adopted this word for their respective leaders. In Venice, the doge ruled in conjunction with the Great Council, made up of aristocrats and wealthy merchants.
19. B
While dogs were certainly present in Dutch paintings at this time, pets were not unusual; many other artists from other countries included them as well. However, the lace and ruff collars (A), the dark lighting (D), and the overall seriousness of the painting (C) are classic characteristics of the Dutch Golden Age. This was an era when Dutch merchants commissioned thousands of portraits of themselves, and because of their serious Calvinism refused to show off their finery or their land holdings. It seems that van Eyck applied some of those skills to this Italian family.
20. D
Moffat writes that Save in the sphere of religion, where she had been led to believe that inquiry was deadly sin… Then recall that Maria Theresa was a Habsburg, the very Catholic ruling family of not only Austria but also Spain and the Netherlands. From that you can deduce that she was speaking about the Catholic doctrine of infallibility, (D), which is the Catholic Church’s belief in the perfection of its own theology.
21. C
Though her father, Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI, paved the way for her to succeed him, Maria Theresa was challenged by King Frederick II of Prussia, who immediately moved into Silesia, an affluent Habsburg portion of Poland, and seized it. Maria spent the next seven years trying to secure the support of Hungarians in her empire so that she could mount a defense against what she was sure was Frederick’s next move: a takeover of her own throne. She was successful, since that takeover never came, and this period became known as the War of the Austrian Succession. Choice (A) occurred a few centuries earlier, in Czech territory. Choice (B) occurred a century and a half later, so eliminate that too. Choice (D) was a different seven-year conflict that occurred during her reign.
22. B
In an age when feminism was basically unheard of, any woman with a strong mind who wished to express herself typically made her way to the salon scene in Paris. Usually held in private homes of wealthy individuals, they were staples of Enlightenment thinking, with logic, wit, and equal opportunity on full display. Many of the hosts of the salons were in fact women.
23. A
The Great Reform Act occurred in 1828, nearly a century before Moffat wrote this passage. (Also, it was absolutely not a feminist act, since it confirmed the exclusion of women from the electorate.) The other three answer choices, however, were feminist organizations founded in the five years prior to the publication of this passage, in 1911. This means that Moffat was much more likely to have been influenced by those groups.
24. B
Think of this as a NOT or EXCEPT question (more on these question types in Chapter 1): which of the four following territories did NOT politically collapse four years later? By the time World War I had concluded, it had taken with it the corpses of the so-called Austro-Hungarian Empire (A) and Ottoman Empire (D). Both were carved into smaller constituent states—Austria, Hungary, Turkey, etc., all of which still persist today. At the same time, Serbia, (C), was lumped together with several other ethnic states in the Balkans to form a new nation, Yugoslavia, and thereby lost its autonomy.
25. A
It was called the Dual Monarchy because it had only two ruling groups: the Austrians and the Habsburgs. But the empire was the most ethnically diverse in all of Europe, with many small groups going unrepresented in parliament—the Austrians and the Hungarians had an arrangement to that effect. It had two parliaments, not seven, so eliminate (B), and while it did contain five religions, they were not in equal numbers: Catholicism was by far predominant. Eliminate (C).
26. A
World War I, and the insistence of U.S. leadership, is what brought Poland to life. That country was reformed by Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points (it was in fact the Thirteenth Point), presented at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. However, it didn’t come as easy as snapping their fingers. For three years, from 1918 to 1921, the Polish army was forced to fight a series of border wars, primarily against the Russians, to flex its muscles and establish itself as a nation once more.
27. C
World War I and World War II featured nearly the same lineups, leading some historians to posit that the two wars were simply one and the same, with a 20-year break. One major change was Italy, which switched from the Allies (WWI) to the Axis powers (WWII). Another major dropout was Turkey, which had supported the Central Powers in WWI. The Russian Revolution occurred at the same time as WWI, so eliminate (A). The Spanish Civil War was not a continental war, but a national one, so eliminate (B). The Yugoslav Wars occurred at the end of the 20th century and, like the Spanish Civil War, were largely civil, or national, wars; eliminate (D).
28. D
Regarding art, Protestantism was concerned with stripping away all unnecessary decoration, until nothing was left but the plainest possible representations of cultural totems. The reason was simple: It was a sin against God to bring too much attention upon oneself. It was also reaction to the baroque excesses—eliminate (A)—of the Roman Catholic Church; eliminate (B). The interiors of Protestant churches are blank and simple, compared with the ornate magnificent interiors of Catholic ideas. Chinoiserie is the European interpretation of Chinese art; eliminate (C).
29. B
The explanation of why the mid-Victorian table decorations are so dreadful gives away the answer. The hideous dish-covers and branching candelabra bring to mind the same baroque excesses covered in the previous question. European design in the 20th century, however, did away with that excess, and ushered in a period of minimalism that is still with us, over a century later. This author’s opinion—even though we don’t know of his own contribution to the world of design—reflects those upcoming changes.
30. C
Typically, as people enter the middle class, they try to imitate, in design, what they perceive as upper class. The branching candleabras and hideous dish-covers mentioned by the author are an example of this phenomenon, since the excessive Bourbon French designs of the 17th and 18th centuries still served in the 19th century as an example to the bourgeoisie of so-called upper-class design. (This Bourbon image of wealth is so powerful that it still persists in many parts of the world, even in the 21st century.)
31. B
The principles of ancient Greeks reflected a belief in moderation of all things, and balance between opposing ideas or elements. Eliminate (A) and (C). In this same way, the ancients embraced lack of excess in both design and philosophy, paring things down to the lowest possible number of elements to achieve balance. Eliminate (D). Symmetry, however, while seen in some ancient Greek design—especially architecture—was not a mandatory characteristic.
32. C
The suddenness of death, and its eventual arrival at every level of humanity, is a favorite theme of societies that have survived a massive illness or plague. The Black Death certainly satisfies that criteria, having killed an estimated 50 million people—60 percent of Europe’s entire population. Choice (A) is a trap answer; while the Spanish Inquisition certainly was related to death, the people being killed were largely Jews and Muslims, not Catholic monks. Eliminate (A). Choice (D) is not directly concerned with mortality, so eliminate that as well. The Münster Rebellion occurred 10 years after this woodcut was produced; eliminate (B).
33. B
The sales of indulgences, which were essentially buy-your-way-out-of-hell tickets, were often sold by Catholic monks. Johannes Tetzel, for example, had been a notorious seller of indulgences, pulling in nearly a million dollars per year (adjusted for inflation) from peasants—and he was a Catholic friar. By 1525, the year of this woodcut, Martin Luther had already posted his 95 theses, the Protestant Revolution had already erupted, and many had already begun rebelling against such pious con artists.
34. D
Of the four choices, the only person who evinced a real satirical spirit was Erasmus of Rotterdam, who mocked the Catholic Church for its ridiculous excesses during the late medieval era. In fact, his famous work In Praise of Folly uses irony and humor to make the point that that which seems stupid is sometimes wise, and vice versa. Though Thomas More was very religious (and Hans Holbein did know him well), More never showed much of a sense of humor in his famous works such as Utopia. Neither did Martin Luther—though we have to admit that the title of his book Against the Murderous, Thieving Horde of Peasants does sound pretty funny today.
35. C
Not much can be said about all English families from this single passage, so eliminate (A). While it seems that some of this passage was obtained from church records—note the baptism—there is no evidence that this was the primary way of tracking one’s genealogy, so eliminate (B). Eliminate (D) for the same reason: there is no evidence that anyone other than Lyster had second wives.
36. A
Choice (B) describes the laissez-faire free market that replaced the guild system, a medieval-era relic that was essentially an “old boys club” that rewarded well-known members of the community. These guilds were in many places inextricably linked to prominent families; eliminate (B). The feudal system rewarded those who descended from aristocratic families; eliminate (C). The growth of cities drew in millions of people from rural areas, especially in England where the peasants were not tied to the land; this disrupted familial lines of succession. Eliminate (D). The Victorian emphasis on men dominating the public sphere and women dominating the private sphere, (A), supports the traditional idea of maintaining strong family lines.
37. A
King Charles I was beheaded by the Parliamentarians in 1649. If Lyster had been a Royalist, it makes sense that he would’ve been disappointed by this outcome, and especially by the man who succeeded him, Oliver Cromwell. Roundheads, (B), were Parliamentarians, and the Diggers, (C), were never more than a radical anarchist Protestant sect of the era; eliminate both. While Lyster almost certainly opposed Parliamentarians, this does not indicate that he was oppressed by them; eliminate (D).
38. A
Because the passage notes that Thomas Lyster entertained the king in his house during the English Civil War, it’s safe to assume that this was not a peasant family. Choices (B) and (D) are eliminated for the same reason; both place Lyster on the side of the Parliamentarians. Choice (C) is irrelevant, so eliminate it.
39. D
While it’s true that there were social aspects to the English civil war, this was not its primary distinguishing characteristic, so eliminate (A). Choice (B) is pure fiction, so remove that too. Choice (C) describes a conflict in England at the time, but it too wasn’t the main driver of the civil war; eliminate that as well. The English Civil War really was born from the desire of Royalists to hold onto power, and the desire of Parliamentarians to wrestle power away from the throne. The outcome—a constitutional monarchy, with limited powers for the king—paved the way for the rise of the British Empire in the 19th century.
40. D
In 1789, King Louis XVI had called a meeting of the Estates General—a rarity—to discuss ways to refill the empty royal treasury. (Bourbon kings had a bad habit of starting expensive foreign wars that they couldn’t win.) This would potentially mean a new tax structure, but not necessarily, so eliminate (B). There hadn’t been any declaration of war on Spain, at least not for decades, so eliminate (A). And the massive revolution that was about to come hadn’t started yet—in fact, it largely began because of the meeting of the Estates General itself, so cross out (C). The truth is that the Parlement of Paris of 1787 had failed to ratify Calonne’s program of financial reform, so Calonne had suggested calling the Estates General—an old institution that hadn’t met for decades—as a way around the problem.
41. A
The intendants were a group of 33 officials scattered around the nation of France, who’d been present in French society for over 200 years. They supervised local officials, suspended judges, set up tribunals, ran taxation, represented the crown at local functions, and of course reported information back to the king. But intendants weren’t governors—in fact, they’d subverted and quietly replaced the local governors a century earlier. Since France was an absolute monarchy under the Bourbons, think of them instead as the king’s arms and legs. Their unaccountable power made them unpopular, and in 1789 their power was suddenly removed. Choices (B) and (D) both occurred several years later, and (C) never happened at all, since the bourgeoisie were ascendant in the 19th century.
42. C
The Third Estate represented the commoners, and since its numbers exceeded both the First (clergy) and Second (nobility) Estates, it simply declared itself as the National Assembly. This was in opposition to the wishes of the king. Choice (A) describes a situation in which church officials wished for greater royal control over themselves, which was very unlikely, so eliminate it. The Second Estate was averse to shouldering a greater tax burden, but it never formed the National Assembly; eliminate (B). The Fourth Estate didn’t exist at that time, and today it refers to the media, so eliminate (D).
43. B
There was no great religious motivation involved in this period of French history—the Hugenots had been more or less absorbed into daily life—so eliminate (A). There is little evidence of either geographic scholars having been consulted or great concern for the reality of life on the ground; eliminate (C) too. It’s possible that this redistricting was done according to the principles of reason and logic, (D), but what’s more certain is that the new National Assembly had just assumed control of a metaphorical plane that was metaphorically headed into the side of a mountain.
44. B
The entire line reads A Christian nation fighting for its Might/With hell’s munitions more than sword and pen. The Christian nation fighting for its might is Germany, and the hell’s munitions is a reference to the brand-new efficient killing technology used in World War I, such as mustard gas, armored tanks, and fighter planes. This is in contrast to the way that conflicts used to be waged—with swords on horseback, or merely with the written word.
45. A
Mephistopheles was a demonic folk character in German mythology, and the implication of the private wire is that the German army was consulting with demons for how to better fight. England had shrunk from war I do avow can be translated into the more modern I swear that England would have avoided the war, so it’s clear that Dowsing and other English citizens have been stunned by the power of the German military. The other three choices have all been misinterpreted.
46. C
The table clearly shows that the Allied powers enjoyed an overwhelming advantage in population, territory, and gross domestic product. In fact, this is a commonly explored theme among WWI historians—how during the early 20th century, success in warfare came not from strategy and leadership but from sheer volume of production and population. France is irrelevant, as is wise and strategic leadership, so eliminate (A) and (B). While territory and gross domestic product are both listed in the table, there is no evidence that the ratio between them is a factor; eliminate (D).
47. D
Conscription is compulsory enlistment in the service of the state, typically in the armed forces, a.k.a. the draft. Eliminate (A). Reparation is the making of amends for wrongs that one has done, typically by aggressor nations after they lose a war. Eliminate (B). Militarism is the belief of a government or a people that a country should maintain a strong military capability, and be prepared to use it aggressively, to defend or promote national interests. It’s closely allied with nationalism; eliminate (C).
48. B
Money and weapons from the United States, the blockades of Germany, and England’s natural position as an island off the coast of continental Europe were all important factors in England’s victory. Eliminate (A), (C), and (D). What wasn’t important was the late entrance of Russia into the war, because that never happened—Russia entered in early 1914, at the beginning of the war. Furthermore, Russia actually made an early exit from the war, when its tsarist regime collapsed. Overall, its role in WWI was not nearly as vital as its role in WWII.
49. D
Languet’s observation is simple: kings are people too, with errors and flaws and poor judgment. Standing in direct opposition to that idea is King James’s idea that monarchy approacheth nearest to perfection. The other answer choices are verbs that either have been applied to different ideas entirely, or have been misinterpreted.
50. B
King James I specifically writes that monarchy (which form of government, as resembling the divinity…) Traditional royalists such as himself and, earlier, Richard II argued that a monarch’s power came directly from God. There is definitely no constitutionalism present here, so eliminate (C). And while James I certainly believed in the idea of hereditary monarchy (and quite possibly absolute monarchy as well), there is no evidence supporting those ideas in this passage. Eliminate (A) and (D).
51. B
The 16th-century Protestant Revolution was, in part, the commoners’ reaction against the corruption and rigid structures of the Catholic Church. This impulse to “flatten the hierarchy” (which is the rough definition of egalitarianism) is also quite evident in Languet’s argument that kings are merely people too, that the pomp and circumstance and the trappings of the crown were just empty rituals. Logic and reason had yet to take Europe by storm—that would have to wait until the 18th century—so eliminate (A). Political justice and tribal cultures of the New World are both out of scope, so eliminate (C) and (D).
52. D
The conflict contained within and around the English Civil War took nearly a century to resolve. It started with the arrival of King James I in 1603, at the very beginning of the 17th century, and culminated in Charles II’s forced abdication in 1688. At the end of that turbulent period, English society finally confirmed the primacy of Parliament (representing the people) over the royal crown via the passage of the English Bill of Rights (1689). The other three answer choices were important events during this period, but none of them resolved the conflict.
53. C
The Spanish Civil War, which lasted from 1936 to 1939, saw the central power of the Spanish Nationalists (based in Madrid) attempt to subdue the coalition of Republican forces. The Republicans ranged from left-of-center liberal democrats to radical anarchists, but most of them were secular and urban—and Catalonia was one of the Republicans’ bases. After all, the Republican movement allowed for the possibility of Catalan self-government, which many Catalans hoped for, and which Spanish Nationalists fervently opposed. It was popularized by writers such as George Orwell, who wrote Homage to Catalonia, and later by Ernest Hemingway, who covered the Spanish Civil War in both journalism and fiction.
54. D
The passage states that Industry had a better chance to develop [in Catalonia], that it produces about twenty percent of the country’s total agricultural output, and that the Catalan port of Barcelona handles one quarter of the total commercial traffic of Spain in general. While Catalans do speak their own distinct language, and do share a common Catholic background with other parts of the Mediterranean, there is no mention of that in the passage; eliminate (A) and (C). There is no indication of a special relationship with France—though there are Catalans in that country as well—so get rid of (B).
55. D
In Spain, as elsewhere during the middle of the twentieth century, communists were feared. After all, they’d shaken down a 300-year dynasty in Russia, remade the entire society into an authoritarian nightmare, and represented a clear threat to established social order. Because communists in Catalonia and elsewhere had found a home inside the Republicans, the Spanish Nationalists showed no mercy. Meanwhile, the fascists and the extremely religious—such as Opus Dei—allied themselves with the Nationalists, so eliminate (B) and (C).
The official record of the British Empire, and the boots-on-the-ground history of the people absorbed into the empire, are two very different things. Your answer for part a) could include some of the following ideas:
Officially, the British arrived in foreign lands looking merely for trading partners. Joint-stock companies such as the British East India Company were examples of this.
However, as time went on, local “instability”—whether real or imagined—supposedly forced the British to take over the government of the foreign land, converting a former trading partner into an outright colony. Over the centuries, the Royal Navy grew in power, becoming the greatest fleet in the world, all to reinforce this political “goodwill.”
The outright racism evidenced by Godard was typical of its time, and it can be seen as the British Empire’s method of justifying its own imperialism. A famous American poem of the era, “The White Man’s Burden,” by Rudyard Kipling, exemplified this idea and would be appropriate to mention here.
Given that England invaded and/or colonized so many regions of the world in the 18th and 19th centuries, you have a wide array of specific examples to analyze. One obvious one, however, would be India, the so-called “jewel in the crown” of the British Empire, which England first approached as traders looking for resources. Another is Australia, which England first used as a distant prison for its worst criminals. Others include Jamaica (in which a native revolt was brutally put down through mass slaughter) and the United States.
Godard wrote the passage in 1905, which was the very height of the British Empire. This meant that his point of view was one of supreme confidence in England’s abilities to maintain an empire. But if there’s one thing we know from history, it’s that change is inevitable. As the 20th century carried on, many of its colonies began to divest themselves from the crown as England’s ability to maintain its empire was cast into doubt.
Therefore, for part b) your answer could include the emancipation process involved in any of many colonies or dominions that won independence. Here’s a list of some of those colonies/nations:
India
Egypt
Ireland
Canada
South Africa
Zimbabwe
Palestine
Iraq
Singapore
Sudan
This isn’t the place to analyze each in detail, but here is a broad picture: Early in the 20th century, England resisted some of these independence movements, while later in the century it granted independence much more easily. After all, maintaining a global empire is a very expensive undertaking, and in the years after World War II, England was flat broke. (Food was rationed for over a decade following the end of the war.)
For example, India’s independence process would be an easy one to discuss, since it involves a name that everybody knows: Mahatma Gandhi, whose leadership on the Indian National Congress and nonviolent techniques led to his own imprisonment, to a hunger strike, and eventually to independence in 1947. At that time, England simultaneously granted independence to India and created the nation of Pakistan in an event known as the Partition.
Another prominent example is Egypt, which England had occupied since 1882 (though it wasn’t technically a colony). Of special note would be the Suez Canal crisis in 1956, in which England tried an unsuccessful invasion of Egypt in a vain attempt to maintain control of the canal, since it allowed easy access for British ships carrying oil to pass from England to the Middle East and vice versa. The defeat was humiliating, and it marked the end of the British Empire.
The poor state of the relationship between England and France throughout the 18th century was expressed through their more or less constant warfare. During the 18th century, the two nations waged a seemingly endless series of wars with one another. These conflicts had many different causes, including:
The War of the League of Augsburg (1688–1697). Louis XIV of France attempted to seize more land along the French border in order to create a solid line of defense. (Yes, that was the official explanation.) Opposing him was an entire European alliance, which included England, Spain, Austria, and others. This conflict included France funding or supporting revolts inside Scotland and Ireland against the English crown.
The War of Spanish Succession (1702–1713). Spain’s king, Charles II, was going to die childless, so he bequeathed the monarchy of Spain to Philip, grandson of Louis XIV of France. Alarmed at the possibility of a politically united France and Spain, England moved to fight them. The conflict lasted for over a decade until Philip, on the Spanish throne, gave up rights to the French throne.
The Seven Years’ War (1756–1763). The first world war. England and France fought one another on three different continents, including North America (where it was called the French and Indian War). England’s win is considered foundational to its future success as an empire.
The Anglo-French War (1778–1783). This was the European side of the American Revolutionary War. France sent support to the colonists; England sent support and soldiers to the Royalists. Also, often using allies or proxies, England and France fought for dominance in the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, and the West Indies.
The War of the First Coalition (1791–1812). These 21 years of more or less continuous warfare include the period of the French Revolution, during which England gleefully stirred up the civil war occurring in its rival. France actually declared war on England while its own country was erupting into civil violence.
Napoleon Bonaparte was frustrated by England; it was the only European country he didn’t conquer. So he attempted an economic war against Britain instead, creating the continental system, which is a code word for an embargo against England. Meanwhile, England pursued military action against French troops in Portugal and Spain.
Following 1815, however, the relationship between the countries improved. This was caused by multiple factors, many unrelated to warfare. Here are a few of them:
After the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Britain entered the 19th century the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. The British Empire spanned the globe—it would either colonize, invade, or attempt to colonize or invade nearly 90% of all countries in the world in the next century. It was considered the preeminent financial, military, and cultural superpower. France, meanwhile, was internally shattered after its dramatic quarter-century of French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte drama. Given the inequality, it’s no wonder that the relationship grew more cordial.
England and France became allies against Russia’s expansion and aggression toward the Ottoman Empire in the Crimean War of the 1850s.
The organization of English society was in some ways preferable to the more haphazard nature of French society: for instance, England’s powerful central banking system had a willingness to make loans to entrepreneurs. Writers ranging from Voltaire to Karl Marx noted this, both of whom lived and worked in England for years. According to one apocryphal story, a 19th-century French diplomat attempted to pay a compliment to his English counterpart by saying, If I were not a Frenchman, I would want to be an Englishman. As the story goes, the English diplomat coldly responded, If I were not an Englishman, I would want to be an Englishman.
In the 19th century, other European powers such as Russia and Austria joined England in keeping France in check, at least with regard to its foreign policy.
In the first half of the 20th century, both nations faced a ferocious common enemy in Germany.
To answer a) fully, you need to first describe education on the Italian peninsula in the medieval era:
Medieval education in Italy was dominated by the Catholic church, particularly in monastic schools and in cathedral schools. There were some independent tutors, however, for the wealthier people.
Medieval education centered upon the deductive reasoning, in which general principles are used to deduce equally general conclusions. Some of these could verge on the ridiculous: See the famous medieval scholastic debate How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
With the arrival of new texts, new philosophies, new teachers, and new schools, the Italian Renaissance changed education immensely. Here are a few examples:
The Italian peninsula borrowed old ideas from antiquity that were new to them, such as Protagoras’s famous quote that “Man is the measure of all things.” This is the modern definition of humanism.
The translation and study of classic works of ancient Greece and Rome, as urged by Petrarch, the father of Renaissance humanism.
The studia humanitatis. Today called the humanities, this course of study consisted of the trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, astronomy, music, and geometry). These courses were studied at a new school called gymnasiums, which were designed essentially as liberal arts schools for wealthy boys.
Neoplatonism rose in popularity. This was an arcane branch of knowledge that included mysticism, numerology, and even alchemy. Its chief proponent was Marsilio Ficino.
Regarding part b), the consequences of this sea change in education were enormously transformative.
Italians began forming their young men to become well-rounded civic leaders, or men of virtu (meaning “virtue”).
Because of this, learning how to conduct oneself in the court of a ruler became important. Baldassare Castiglione wrote a handbook called The Courtier for this reason. The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli could be relevant here as well.
Their ideas about education began to be exported to northern Europe via book traders and travelling tutors. This dissemination of information stimulated the questioning of orthodoxy, which led to the principled resistance of figures such as Sir Thomas More. Consequently, northern European figures such as Erasmus and Luther kickstarted the most important event in the last thousand years of European history, the Protestant Revolution.
The nation of Yugoslavia was created in 1918 following the end of World War I, but its formation has roots that go much deeper than that:
The idea of Pan-Slavism—the foundation of a totally Slavic state—had been present in Europe as far back as the 17th century.
The Balkans region had been part of the multiethnic Ottoman Empire and then part of the multiethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire. Thus, forming a multiethnic state here wasn’t as far-fetched as it would be in other monoethnic parts of Europe, such as Sweden or Germany.
The 19th-century push toward nationalism carried over into the early 20th century. Slavic leaders had been plotting to create a Slavic homeland for nearly a century before it finally happened. The revolutions of 1848, many of which occurred in the Balkans, are evidence of this desire for a unified homeland. Incidentally, this same impulse can be seen in the way that Jews started to plan their own nationalistic homeland at that same time (which resulted in the formation of Israel in 1948).
The end of World War I, and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, presented the opportunity to finally make a pan-Slavic nation a reality. If you know the specific details, great, but they’re not necessary. It could be nice to note that the Treaty of Versailles formalized its creation, which was initially called the Kingdom of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs. Eventually, the kingdom added the other nationalities and declared itself the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1946.
There are many reasons for the failure of the nation of Yugoslavia. Here’s a list of the categories, but the analysis can and should vary according to your own insights:
Political. In the 1980s, former president Josip Tito instituted one-year terms for future presidents of Yugoslavia. This made the office highly ineffective.
Economic. Yugoslavia had been a communist state, allied with the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the Soviet Union came enormous economic stress upon the people of Yugoslavia, as their debt would no longer be handled or supported by the Soviet empire. This caused a flare-up in…
Ethnic strife. Over the centuries, the Slavic people of the Balkans had learned how to coexist with neighbors who speak different languages and worship different gods. But when economic stressors grow intolerable, even their patience wore out—and they cracked, in a horribly spectacular way. In the 1980s, they elected Slobodan Milošević, an ethnic Serb, to the presidency, who began a policy of ethnic cleansing. He started a civil war with other minorities.
Religious. Both Christians and Muslims coexisted within Yugoslavia, and they began turning on one another in the same way that the ethnic groups did.
The breakup of Yugoslavia is an immensely complicated topic, so don’t worry if you don’t quite have a handle on it. This is a short answer—it is highly doubtful that you would ever be asked to write anything longer on the topic!
The Document-Based Question (DBQ) section begins with a 15-minute reading period. During those 15 minutes, you should 1) come up with some information not included in the given documents (from your outside knowledge), 2) get an overview of what each document means and the point of view of each author, 3) decide what opinion you’re going to argue, and 4) write an outline of your essay.
The DBQ in Practice Test 1 concerns the issue of the extent to which World War I caused the collapse of Austria-Hungary. You should be prepared to discuss the empire’s formation, its many weaknesses, its few strengths, and the particulars of the war. You should also remember the famous PERSIA method of organizing characteristics of any historical time period—Political, Economic, Religious, Social, Intellectual, and Artistic. The first three tend to be more useful than the last three, so try to at least remember PER.
BEFORE YOU LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS, first brainstorm for a minute or two. Try to list everything you know (from class or leisure reading or informational documentaries) about the history of Austria and Hungary and especially the two of them together. This list will serve as your reference to the outside information you must provide to earn a top grade.
Next, read over the documents. As you read them, take notes in the margins and underline those passages that you are certain you are going to use in your essay. Make note of the opinions and position of the document’s author. If a document helps you remember a piece of outside information, add that outside information to your brainstorming list. If you cannot make sense of a document or if it argues strongly against your position, relax! You do not need to mention every document to score well on the DBQ.
Here is what you might assess in the time you have to look over the documents.
Document 1
This is a factual explanation of how fractured the Austria-Hungary Empire was at the dawn of World War I. As the first document, it will be easy to use as background for the dangerously unbalanced conditions in which Austria-Hungary found itself at the beginning of the war.
Document 2
This map gives specific names and concrete visual proof of the fracturing of Austria-Hungary along ethnic lines. Obviously it can be used to argue that multiethnic states are a weakness. After all, Italy was similarly broken into many different city-states, but they managed to come together.
Document 3
The photo of Archduke Francis Ferdinand is meant to stimulate outside knowledge about the role that his assassination played in the start of World War I. As the nephew of Emperor Franz Josef, he was a major figure in Austria. This is your opportunity to discuss the system of entangling alliances, and to explain Serbia’s alliance with Russia, among other things.
Document 4
This is the only document that supports a unified Austria-Hungary, specifically pointing out that there were surprisingly few religious tensions in the empire, either from a legal or a social standpoint.
Document 5
In this document, Schierbrand seems to be blaming the Hungarians for not sharing their bountiful harvest with Austrians during the war. (Note his last name, which is Germanic, an instance of potential bias.) Refusal to share basic resources, such as food, is another strong reason for the war to have accelerated the end of the empire.
Document 6
The impossibility of finding a shared language is offered in this document. It provides evidence that one more reason for the fractured empire was linguistic—if all the people don’t speak at least one common language, that people cannot unify.
Document 7
In this document from 1915, Masaryk (who is something of a folk hero to the Czech people today) points out that Austria had been falling apart for a very long time prior to the start of World War I. He opines that Austria-Hungary only arose to counter the Ottoman Empire, and that without this common enemy, it would collapse. (This is exactly what happened a few years later—very prescient!) He points out that Austria-Hungary exists only as the vassal of Berlin, meaning that the power of Germany and the German-speaking people are the only thing keeping the empire propped up.
Outside Information
We have already discussed more than you could include in a 40-minute essay. Do not worry. You will not be expected to mention all of what we have covered in the section above. You will, however, be expected to include some outside information—that is, information not directly mentioned in the documents. Here are some examples of outside information that you might incorporate in your essay:
Though they exist outside the bounds of this question, 18th-century Austrian rulers could be namedropped as examples of the long history of German-speaking people’s domination of the Holy Roman Empire (which was a forerunner to Austria-Hungary). For example, you could mention the Pragmatic Sanction, which guaranteed the Habsburgs’ right to bind together the region by passing on their inheritance to their daughter, Maria Theresa and afterward to her son Joseph II.
The philosophy of nationalism was the invisible presence throughout these documents. You could link anything from that movement (philosophers, revolutions, etc.) to conditions inside Austria-Hungary.
Austria-Hungary boasted a single monarch for almost its entire official existence, Emperor Franz Jose ph, head of the Habsburg dynasty. Dominating its politics from 1848 (before it even officially became the Austria-Hungary Empire) to 1916 (just before it collapsed), he was the third-longest reigning monarch in European history.
The Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 was the official agreement that formally ended the Austrian Empire and replaced it with the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary. In this agreement, the Habsburgs joined forces with Hungarian elites by granting them greater autonomy, such as their own parliament, the Diet of Hungary, separate from the Austrian one. However, the Habsburgs kept the title of Emperor for Franz Joseph, and also insisted that he be given the title of King of Hungary. Confused yet?
Franz Josef annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908. This precipitated the Bosnian Crisis, during which Austria-Hungary’s Balkan neighbors complained angrily about Austrian interference. This diplomatic conundrum indirectly laid the groundwork for the reaction to the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand (Document 3) in Sarajevo. As a result, it became the inciting incident of World War I.
It could be worth mentioning Austria-Hungary’s official role in starting World War I. After Ferdinand’s assassination, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, which was an ally of Russia. This was the match that started the fire, the very first formal step in the series of entangling alliances that led to the most destructive war in the history of the world at that time.
The effect of the Bolshevik Revolution should not be forgotten. It was viewed as a cry for nationalism, which stirred the minorities in the Austro-Hungarian Empire to demand political rights for themselves too.
A wishy-washy thesis—meaning taking both sides—is usually a good way to organize your response to any essay featuring the words to what extent. In other words, it’s quite easy to argue that World War I did in fact accelerate the destruction of Austria-Hungary, BUT that the seeds of their destruction had already been present for many years. Choosing such a thesis allows a lot of wiggle room.
The proportion of evidence, however, is up to you. It’s probably not possible to do a fifty-fifty type essay for this prompt, just because most of the documents support the war hypothesis, and most students probably don’t have the depth of outside knowledge to be able to argue the preexisting conditions. Therefore, the best proportion of evidence to use here would be 75% war, 25% preexisting conditions.
Unless you read extremely quickly, you probably will not have time to write a detailed outline for your essay during the 15-minute reading period. However, it is worth taking several minutes to jot down a loose structure of your essay because it will actually save you time when you write. First, decide on your thesis and write it down in the test booklet. (There is usually some blank space below the documents.) Then, take a minute or two to brainstorm all the points you might put in your essay. Choose the strongest points and number them in the order you plan to present them. Lastly, note which documents and outside information you plan to use in conjunction with each point. If you organize your essay before you start writing, the actual writing process will go much more smoothly. More importantly, you will not write yourself into a corner, suddenly finding yourself making a point you cannot support or heading toward a weak conclusion (or, worse still, no conclusion at all).
This particular DBQ doesn’t offer a whole lot of room for interpretation. It’s clear from the documents that World War I severely stressed out an already teetering Austro-Hungarian Empire. The only exception to this is Document 4, which notes that religious tolerance was one of the empire’s strong points. This is your best (and only) option to show the other side, or counterargument.
The most obvious way to organize this essay would be using PERSIA. Your grouping of documents might look like this:
Political
Document 1
Document 3
Document 7
Economic
Document 5**
Religious
Document 4
Social/Linguistic
Document 2
Document 6
A ridiculously easy way to organize this essay would be to devote one paragraph to each category. The Economic paragraph would serve nicely as the counterargument, and can be placed anywhere—beginning, middle, or end. However, Document 1 would do best at the beginning of the essay, since it lays out the background of the Austro-Hungary Empire.
Notice also that the above organization uses all the documents! Typically it’s not recommended, but the general uniformity of this particular DBQ offers a greater opportunity to utilize all of the sources. After all, 6 of the 7 documents support the same view of the issue, and a couple of them even overlap in theme. So if there’s ever a time to swing for the fences, it’s here.
There are other ways to organize, but this way is the most obvious—and with only 40 minutes to write, it’s often better to go the obvious route. Once you choose one of these structures, go down your list of outside information and think of ways to integrate each one into the essay. It won’t always be possible but every outside idea you can add will lend weight to your essay, as long as it can be fitted into your thesis statement. Remember that an obvious, desperate stretch will only hurt your score. However, history is by nature intricate and the readers of your exam want to see that you respect the intrinsic complexity behind many historical events.
Because you have only 40 minutes to plan and write this essay, you will not have time to work out an elaborate argument. That’s okay; nobody is expecting you to read three questions, choose one, remember all pertinent facts about your subject, formulate a brilliant thesis, and then write a perfect essay. Here is what you should do. First, choose your question; next, brainstorm for two or three minutes, and edit your brainstorm ideas. Then, number those points you are going to include in your essay in the order you plan to present them, just as we did for the DBQ. Last, think of a simple thesis statement that allows you to discuss the points your essay will make.
Question 2: Compare and contrast three different branches of Protestantism that appeared in northern Europe in the sixteenth century.
There is one obvious way to structure this essay: one branch of Protestantism per paragraph. It is possible, but not advisable, to choose other methods of organization. Below is the list of types of Protestantism, and their major characteristics, that you could choose from.
Lutherans. This was the original group of Protestants, founded by Martin Luther in the early 1500s with his famous posting of the 95 Theses. The first sect to divide Western Christianity, Lutheranism was condemned by Catholic leaders via such pronouncements as the Edict of Worms. Why? For its promotion of heretical ideas such as “grace alone through faith alone on the basis of Scripture alone.” The priesthood was opened up to “the priesthood of all believers,” and the Bible—not the Roman Catholic hierarchy—was touted as the final arbiter of right and wrong. Ironically, Lutherans do preserve many Catholic liturgical practices and sacramental teachings, at least compared with other Protestant sects.
Anabaptists. This group was more radical than almost any other group, and as their name would indicate, they believed in the primacy of baptism—but only when chosen consciously by an individual, usually as an adult. Begun in Zurich as an offshoot of a group of reformers led by Ulrich Zwingli, the Anabaptists were never formally accepted anywhere, by any state, and they violently seized the town of Munster before being routed. (Ironically, today the peaceful sects of Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites are descendants of this group of radicals.)
Calvinists. Begun by John Calvin and other theologians (including Zwingli), this group placed great emphasis on predestination, as well as the lack of the body of Christ in the Eucharist. It became the state religion of Scotland via reformer John Knox, but in France it was a different story. The Hugenots, as French Calvinists were called, were discriminated against, slaughtered, and accepted—sometimes all within the space of 10 years. Institutes, written by Calvin himself, is one of the great texts of the Protestant Revolution. Today, the term “Reformed” is used in place of Calvinists.
Anglicans. Also known as the Church of England, Anglicanism was founded by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer as he attempted to build a case for Henry VIII’s annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. This was the most famous of its several reasons for its separation from the Roman Catholic Church. Theologically, Anglicans are known for having navigated a middle way between Protestants and Catholics. One unique facet of this branch is the Book of Common Prayer, which ties all members together in a common liturgy. This is by far the mildest of the four branches.
Question 3: Describe the working-class responses to industrialization during the 19th century.
With the arrival of the second Industrial Revolution—the larger, longer one—English society, and European society in general, began a century-long transformation. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, both in physics and human behavior, the reaction from the working classes was particularly strong.
The most important thing to remember is that the working classes didn’t benefit from industrialization. Think about what the working class had to do just to stay employed during this time of extreme change. In England, for instance, the landless peasants were forced to move from the countryside into the growing cities in order to work at factories. There, they were greeted with:
Irregular employment—factories often closed with zero warning
Long shifts—12 to 16 hours was normal
Child labor was rampant, because children worked more cheaply than adults and could easily crawl beneath machines
Tightly-packed homes—an entire family was often housed in a single room
No plumbing
Rampant cholera, typhoid, and typhus, which were common because sewage often contaminated drinking water
Damp, drafty homes, which caused tuberculosis
Industrial smog—there was so much air pollution that people regularly died of respiratory illness
Rising cost of living, resulting in a lack of food and increased crime
Using any or all of these ideas as background would be appropriate in this essay.
So what, then, was the working-class response to these radical changes?
The Luddites, of course, rejected the machinery that was enabling all of this radical change, often by smashing it. Named after their fictional leader, Ned Lud, this group exhibited, shall we say, a violent response.
Others formed cooperatives, which was a more constructive response. Still very existent today in Europe and elsewhere (Land O’Lakes butter is one), cooperatives are businesses or organizations that are owned and run jointly by their own members, who also share the profits or benefits. During the Industrial Revolution, their most famous proponent was Robert Owen, who attempted to organize several cooperatives in Scotland and elsewhere. These cooperatives eventually became full-fledged labor unions, initially in the U.K. and then on the European continent later in the 19th century.
Still others turned to full-on socialism, and there was no shortage of gurus and groups in this field calling out to disaffected members of the urban working class. Charles Fourier and Henri Saint-Simon are worth mentioning here, but the most prominent was of course Karl Marx, who formed a Communist League with Friedrich Engels. Together they later wrote The Communist Manifesto. You could also mention Marx’s First International as well as Engels’ Second International, a loose confederation of socialist parties.
You could also make the case that some legal responses to the Industrial Revolution were the result of pressure exerted upon the political representatives by the working class. These groups agitated for better wages and shorter working hours. However, the organizations that tended to be most successful in their political lobbying were in the skilled trades, not the unskilled factory workers. In return, they received legal gifts such as the Ten-Hour Bill of 1847, which restricted child labor to shifts of no more than 10 hours (!). Many of these advances were accomplished under the Chartist movement, a working-class political movement.
This is a partial list. Given that the question encompasses a century of history across 40 different nations, you could potentially produce many other examples of working-class response to this century of extreme socioeconomic change.
Question 4: Outline the relationship between the Soviet Union and Germany from 1945 to 1989.
There is no shortage of points to hit in this essay, and the structure of the essay can easily be chronological. However, you could also choose to divide your analysis by country: one paragraph each on East Germany, West
Germany, and the United States—with the Soviets looming as a backdrop throughout the essay.
In any event, the conflict between the Soviets and Germany during this time period was long and epic in scope. Any or all of the following points are fair game; each would fit in well here.
The partition of Germany into a capitalistic West Germany and a communist Soviet-block East Germany
The Soviet expulsion of ethnic Germans from Soviet-occupied areas
Winston Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech, warning America and the world what was happening
The West’s formation of NATO, followed by the Soviet response with the formation of the Warsaw Pact
The coining of the term Cold War
The Berlin blockade, from 1948–1949, in which American air forces dropped supplies to the beleaguered people of East Berlin, who had been cordoned off from the world by Soviet forces. This event was not the same as…
The construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961, which formally divided the city into West Berlin and East Berlin
The Treaty of Moscow and the Treaty of Warsaw, signed by West Germany and the Soviet Union in 1970, which recognized all current European borders as legitimate
Mikhail Gorbachev and the new policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring)
The Revolutions of 1989, which swept across eastern Europe and resulted in the end of communist rule there and in points beyond
The slow backing away of the Soviet Union from governance of East Germany
The fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent reunification of Germany
This is a basic list; there are many more obscure points to make here. Also, it could be worth pointing out that the most critical moments in the Soviet-German relationship occurred at the beginning of this time period, from 1945 to 1962.