Title: The Twenty-First Century (2000-2020)
Course: Question Banks

Q: On the morning of September 11, 2001, a Boeing 767 crashed into one of the World Trade Center twin towers, in the financial district of lower Manhattan, in New York City. What did most people assume had happened?
- They believed it was an isolated anti-American terrorist attack. (Incorrect. It was not until a second plane hit the south tower that it was determined to be an intentional act of terrorism.)
- It was believed to be a terrorist attack on the American economy. (Incorrect. It was not until a second plane hit the south tower that it was determined to be an intentional act of terrorism.)
- The Pentagon had already been struck so Americans knew it was one in a series of crashes. (Incorrect. The Pentagon was struck 51 minutes after the initial tower in New York was struck.)
- They assumed it was a horrific accident and news crews began filming. (Correct! Morning news programs that were filming the moments after the first impact, then assumed to be an accident, captured and aired live footage of the second plane, as it barreled into the other tower in a flash of fire and smoke.)
A: They assumed it was a horrific accident and news crews began filming.

Q: Remembrances of the September 11th attacks are often centered on the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center twin towers in New York City. However, four hijacked airplanes were involved. Where did the other two airplanes crash?
- Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and Flight 93 crashed into the White House. (Incorrect. It has been concluded that the hijacker of Flight 93 had intended to crash into the White House or other capitol buildings. The unarmed passengers, aware of the other high jackings, did not allow the plane to reach its intended target.)
- Flight 77 crashed into Arlington National Cemetery and Flight 93 hit the White House. (Incorrect. Neither Arlington National Cemetery nor the White House were hit. However, it has been concluded that the White House was an intended target.)
- Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and Flight 93 crashed into the Independence Hall in Pennsylvania. (Incorrect. The American Revolutionary sites located throughout Philadelphia, Pennsylvania were not targeted by the hijackers.)
- Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and Flight 93 crashed in a Pennsylvania field. (Correct! Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon killing all crew and passengers on board and 125 people on the ground. The passengers on Flight 93 became aware of the other high jackings and stormed the cockpit to prevent the plane from crashing into a more populated area.)
A: Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and Flight 93 crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

Q: The United States faced the deadliest attack on American soil on September 11, 2001 since Pearl Harbor. What was President Bush’s response in the days immediately following the terrorist attacks?
- He kept to his campaign promises of not becoming entangled in foreign nation-building. (Incorrect. Although in his presidential campaign Bush had denounced foreign nation-building, he populated his administration with firm believers in the expansion of American democracy and American interests abroad.)
- Bush wanted to immediately declare war on those responsible, but Congress would not grant approval. (Incorrect. Only three days after the attacks Congress issued a joint resolution authorizing the president to use all means necessary against the individuals, organizations, or nations involved in the attacks.)
- Neoconservatives successfully fought for a noninterventionist strategy despite Bush’s wishes. (Incorrect. Neoconservatives were firm believers in the expansion of American democracy and American interests abroad and pushed for an invasion.)
- He declared the U.S. has the right to make war on any regime posing a threat to the U.S. (Correct! He issued the Bush Doctrine, a policy in which the United States would have the right to unilaterally and preemptively make war on any regime or terrorist organization that posed a threat to the United States or to U.S. citizens.)
A: He declared the U.S. has the right to make war on any regime posing a threat to the U.S.

Q: In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, American intelligence agencies identified al-Qaeda as the group responsible. How did the American government respond to this information?
- The United States did not invade Afghanistan until 2003, after learning about weapons of mass destruction being found. (Incorrect. Afghanistan was not accused of having WMD’s.)
- Neoconservatives argued against any military action, claiming the U.S. had no business being involved in other countries' state of affairs. (Incorrect. Neoconservatives were actually firm believers in the expansion of American democracy and American interests abroad. Bush issued the Bush Doctrine, a policy in which the United States would have the right to unilaterally and preemptively make war on any regime or terrorist organization that posed a threat to the United States or to U.S. citizens.)
- The United States immediately struck Afghanistan from the air and in less than one month had captured bin Laden. (Incorrect. This is more similar to Desert Storm also known as the Gulf War, a military operation in Iraq in 1990-1991. This is not what happened in Afghanistan in 2001.)
- Bush declared war on terrorism and demanded the Taliban turn bin Laden over or face attack by the United States. (Correct! Congress issued a resolution authorizing the president to use all means necessary against the individuals, organizations, or nations involved in the attacks and on September 20, 2001, Bush declared a war on terrorism.)
A: Bush declared war on terrorism and demanded the Taliban turn bin Laden over or face attack by the United States.

Q: The United States experienced the worst attack on American soil in more than a generation. How did the American people respond to the terrorist attacks?
- They did not support the military response that President Bush pushed for. (Incorrect. The vast majority of American citizens initially supported both wars.)
- They pushed for President Bush to remain focused on domestic issues. (Incorrect. Domestic issues were quickly forgotten by many as focus shifted to international issues.)
- They were divided along party lines in whether they supported a military response. (Incorrect. People from all over the political spectrum united in their response.)
- They rallied together and supported the government's initial response. (Correct! A badly shaken nation came together as one in a spirit of sadness and patriotism and initially rallied behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.)
A: They rallied together and supported the government's initial response.

Q: In October, 2001, American-led coalition forces began a bombing campaign in Afghanistan and soon introduced ground troops. What was the beginning of the Afghan invasion like?
- Osama bin Laden was quickly captured and detained. (Incorrect. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda operatives retreated into the rugged mountains along the border of Pakistan in eastern Afghanistan evading capture.)
- The Taliban proved to be a formidable enemy and the U.S. was soon bogged down. (Incorrect. A U.S. led military coalition launched attacks in Afghanistan in October, and by the first week of December the Taliban regime had collapsed.)
- The Taliban was quickly defeated and American and coalition troops left Afghanistan. (Incorrect. Even after the fall of the Taliban, coalition troops continued to occupy Afghanistan.)
- Many key cities fell quickly, giving an impression the operation would be soon completed. (Correct! Major Afghan cities fell in quick succession including the capital, Kabul, which fell on November 13, 2001.)
A: Many key cities fell quickly, giving an impression the operation would be soon completed.

Q: Despite al-Qaeda, headquartered in Afghanistan, being identified as the perpetrator of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the United States also invaded Iraq. How did the United States explain the need for an invasion into Iraq?
- Soon after the invasion of Afghanistan, bin Laden and many of his followers sought refuge in Iraq. (Incorrect. Bin Laden and his followers escaped across the Afghan border to mountain sanctuaries in northern Pakistan, not Iraq.)
- Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was the leader of al-Qaeda in both Afghanistan and Iraq. (Incorrect. Osama bin Laden, who was currently in Afghanistan, was the leader of al-Qaeda.)
- The United Nations agreed Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction and supported an invasion. (Incorrect. The head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Hans Blix, dismissed these claims. Blix argued that while Saddam Hussein was not being entirely forthright, he did not appear to be in possession of WMDs.)
- President Bush believed Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. (Correct! It was feared that Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction because Hussein had used WMDs against Iranian forces during his war with Iran in the 1980s, and against the Kurds in 1988. Following the Gulf War, inspectors from the United Nations located and destroyed stockpiles of Iraqi weapons but those arguing for a new Iraqi invasion insisted weapons still existed.)
A: President Bush believed Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

Q: The United States led an air campaign in Afghanistan October 2001 and soon added ground troops. Why did the United States lead a coalition invasion of Afghanistan?
- It was determined that the Taliban was responsible for the attack. (Incorrect. The Taliban was the government in control of Afghanistan, not the entity responsible for the attacks.)
- Saddam Hussein was determined to be responsible for organizing the attack. (Incorrect. Hussein was the Iraqi dictator, he was not the mastermind behind September 11th.)
- It was believed that Afghanistan had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. (Incorrect. This was the reason given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.)
- The Taliban was sheltering the leader of al-Qaeda. (Correct! The Afghan government, the Taliban, was providing shelter for al-Qaeda, including its leader, Osama bin Laden.)
A: The Taliban was sheltering the leader of al-Qaeda.

Q: As the United States government looked for justification to invade Iraq, they made several arguments in favor of military action. What was one reason they gave in favor of military intervention?
- The Iraqi government was the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks. (Incorrect. It was determined that the terrorist organization al-Qaeda was responsible.)
- The U.S. used United Nations intelligence indicating weapons of mass destruction were present. (Incorrect. The head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Hans Blix, dismissed these claims. Blix argued that while Saddam Hussein was not being entirely forthright, he did not appear to be in possession of WMDs.)
- To protect the civilians in Iraq from an onslaught of al-Qaeda members moving there from Afghanistan. (Incorrect. Although al-Qaeda was active in Iraq in 2003, the protection of civilians from them was not the main objective of the invasion.)
- The invasion would be easy and quick, with the Iraqi people greeting Americans as liberators. (Correct! Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld insisted it would be over in “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that”. Vice President Cheney announced that U.S. forces would likely “be greeted as liberators.”)
A: The invasion would be easy and quick, with the Iraqi people greeting Americans as liberators.

Q: In the weeks and months following September 11th, 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency searched the globe for suspected terrorists and arrested many young, Muslim men. Why did the United States imprison some suspected terrorists in countries other than the US?
- There were no prisons in the United States secure enough to hold the highly dangerous suspected terrorists. (Incorrect. The U.S. has many secure prisons to house terrorists and suspected terrorists.)
- The suspected terrorists had to be imprisoned in the country they were apprehended in and could not come to the U.S. (Incorrect. People can be extradited to other countries in the event of an arrest, they do not need to remain in the country where the arrest took place.)
- The treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was deemed unconstitutional and they had to be moved. (Incorrect. Prisoners were kept at Guantanamo Bay labeled as “unlawful combatants,” in an effort to avoid affording them the rights guaranteed to prisoners of war. Prisoners remain in Guantanamo Bay as of February 2022.)
- Interrogation techniques not allowed in the United States were allowed to be used in some foreign prisons. (Correct! Because U.S. law prohibits the use of torture, the CIA transferred some of these prisoners to other nations—a practice known as rendition or extraordinary rendition—where the local authorities can use methods of interrogation not allowed in the United States.)
A: Interrogation techniques not allowed in the United States were allowed to be used in some foreign prisons.

Q: In the weeks and months following the September 11th terrorist attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began to search within the United States for those who might be associated with terrorist organizations. How did the hunt for terrorists in the United States affect average people living in American?
- Average Americans were not affected as the new programs only targeted suspected terrorists. (Incorrect. The USA Patriot Act enabled law enforcement agencies to monitor, without a warrant, e-mails, internet searches and phone conversations of any person residing in America.)
- American citizens were generally unaffected as the new laws only affected non-citizens. (Incorrect. The Patriot Act affected all people residing in America whether they were citizens, residents or un-documented immigrants.)
- Most Americans faced little backlash from the search for terrorists within Americas borders. (Incorrect. Hate crimes against Muslims and those mistaken for Muslims skyrocketed in America.)
- People residing in America had their 4th Amendment rights infringed upon. (Correct! The 4th Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The USA Patriot Act Congress enabled law enforcement agencies to monitor citizens’ emails and phone conversations without a warrant which is an infringement.)
A: People residing in America had their 4th Amendment rights infringed upon.

Q: Many of the suspected terrorists arrested in the aftermath of September 11th were held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Suspected terrorists were held there, often for months or years, with no charges and no way to challenge their arrest. Why was this indefinite detention allowed to happen?
- The Patriot Act, passed by the U.S. Congress allowed unlawful combatants to be held indefinitely. (Incorrect. The USA Patriot Act enabled law enforcement agencies to monitor citizens’ emails and phone conversations without a warrant.)
- The Department of Homeland Security reasoned the safety of Americans outweighed the rights of prisoners or war. (Incorrect. The purpose of the Department of Homeland Security was to centralized control over a number of different government functions in order to better control threats at home.)
- The Bush Doctrine stated that unlawful combatants were not entitled to the protections outlined in the Geneva Conventions. (Incorrect. The Bush Doctrine stated the United States has the right to protect itself from terrorist acts by engaging in pre-emptive wars or ousting hostile governments in favor of friendly, preferably democratic, regimes.)
- The detainees were labeled unlawful combatants to avoid them being covered under the Geneva Conventions. (Correct! The Bush administration maintained that it was neither obliged to grant basic constitutional protections to the prisoners, nor required to observe the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, as the conventions did not apply to “unlawful enemy combatants.”)
A: The detainees were labeled unlawful combatants to avoid them being covered under the Geneva Conventions.

Q: President Bush had campaigned on many domestic issues including education, but the terrorist attacks on September 11th temporarily derailed his domestic agenda. In 2002, Bush returned to his domestic agenda and signed into law, the No Child Left Behind Act. What did the No Child Left Behind Act hope to accomplish?
- It created a voucher system so poor children could attend private schools. (Incorrect. The voucher system was not part of No Child Left Behind but rather a different attempt at education reform.)
- It created charter schools, schools that are public but funded partly with private donations. (Incorrect. Charter schools were one of Bush’s proposed education reforms, but they were separate from No Child Left Behind.)
- It reduced the amount of federal oversight the government had during the Reagan era. (Incorrect. No Child Left Behind gave the federal government more oversight of education.)
- It sought to close the education gap between White students and students of color. (Correct! No Child Left Behind sought to hold all schools accountable for raising standards and enabling all students to meet them. It erected a system of testing to measure and ultimately improve student performance in reading and math at all schools that received federal funds.)
A: It sought to close the education gap between White students and students of color.

Q: Mrs. Rice is a science teacher who teaches at a public school. She hears about President Bush’s support of charter schools and is excited they are growing in popularity. Why would Mrs. Rice want to teach in a charter school?
- The school is entirely funded by private donations and is not affected by federal education laws. (Incorrect. Charter schools receive some public funding but also can accept private donations. Some federal education regulations still apply to charter schools.)
- She would be able to teach in any manner she decided was best for her students. (Incorrect. Charter schools do have more flexibility, but they still must adhere to many federal and state education regulations, teachers are not free to use any method they see fit.)
- She would be exempt from the standardized testing that No Child Left Behind introduced. (Incorrect. Charter schools still receive public funding so they are considered public schools which are still held accountable by test administration.)
- She would be able to teach in new and innovative ways not always accepted in public schools. (Correct! Charter schools are institutions funded by local tax monies, can accept private donations and are exempt from some of the rules public schools must follow. They are often more receptive to innovative teaching methods.)
A: She would be able to teach in new and innovative ways not always accepted in public schools.

Q: President Bush campaigned with promises to fix American education. Once he was able to return to his domestic agenda his administration offered two solutions to America's education problem. What was the problem with American education in the early 2000s?
- Students were excelling in math and science, but art and music programs were being cut. (Incorrect. A report issued in the 1980s argued that American students were more poorly educated than their peers in other countries, especially in areas such as math and science, and were thus unprepared to compete in the global marketplace.)
- American schools had too much federal oversight and Bush sought to reduce the amount. (Incorrect. No Child Left Behind greatly increased the amount of oversight the federal government had into state education.)
- The increase in charter schools left no public funds for public schools. (Incorrect. Charter schools receive both private and public funding. Funding for charter schools does not take away from other public schools.)
- Test scores showed an ever widening gap between White students and students of color. (Correct! Test scores from the past several years revealed a gap that was still widening, between students of color and White students.)
A: Test scores showed an ever widening gap between White students and students of color.

Q: In 2005 Hurricane Katrina roared ashore devastating the shorelines of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. How did the federal government respond to the catastrophic destruction in New Orleans?
- The newly created Department of Homeland Security was able to swiftly coordinate a successful response. (Incorrect. The Federal Emergency Management Agency was the agency responsible for coordinating a response, not DHS.)
- President Bush acted quickly and decisively helping orchestrate the rescue of over 35,000 residents. (Incorrect. The United States Coast Guard rescued over 35,000 stranded residents. The response from FEMA and Bush was less successful.)
- The federal government did not respond as local and state agencies coordinated a response. (Incorrect. The federal government, along with state and local agencies all responded to the catastrophe.)
- The Federal Emergency Management Agency was ill-prepared and the response was botched. (Correct! FEMA proved inept at coordinating different agencies and utilizing the rescue infrastructure at its disposal. FEMA director Michael D. Brown, a Bush friend, and appointee with no background in emergency management, was used as an example of cronyism at its worst.)
A: The Federal Emergency Management Agency was ill-prepared and the response was botched.

Q: In 2005 Hurricane Katrina washed ashore leaving thousands without basic necessities. How did the evacuation strategy benefit some residents over others?
- Most residents were able to evacuate in time due to the Superdome acting as shelter for those with no other options. (Incorrect. Tens of thousands of residents were trapped by flood water and unable to evacuate. The U.S. Coast guard rescued some 35,000 people.)
- The wealthy residents were unable to evacuate as they lived in the most vulnerable part of the city. (Incorrect. As in many parts of the developing world, the poorest residents of New Orleans lived in the most vulnerable areas of the city. Many of the city's lowest-income residents lived in the floodplains of the lower ninth ward.)
- The evacuation route became clogged with cars trapping people from all areas of the city on the highways. (Incorrect. Many residents fled before the storm using the well-planned interstate highway evacuation route. For tens of thousands of people without cars, money or anywhere else to go, evacuation was not an option.)
- Poor residents with nowhere to go were instructed to evacuate to the Superdome which lacked adequate resources. (Correct! The Superdome, which lacked adequate food, water, and sanitation failed under the weight of the crisis. Individuals sheltering there died in the heat and starved.)
A: Poor residents with nowhere to go were instructed to evacuate to the Superdome which lacked adequate resources.

Q: Hurricane Katrina barreled into New Orleans in 2005 prompting a disaster response from federal, state, and local agencies. How was the response from President Bush received by Americans throughout the United States?
- His personal response increased his approval rating which had declined due to the ongoing wars. (Incorrect. His response was impersonal and detached, contributing to the lowest approval rating of his presidency.)
- He was praised for helping orchestrate an effective and efficient rescue operation. (Incorrect. The U.S. Coast Guard was praised for its incredible rescue operation, but President Bush and his administration received much more criticism than praise for a botched response.)
- He was viewed as negligent for toning down the severity of the storm in the days and hours before it made landfall. (Incorrect. President Bush did warn the residents of New Orleans about the severity of the storm and encouraged evacuation.)
- He was viewed as insensitive and detached from everyday people. (Correct! The fact that his administration was full of inexperienced cronies was blamed in part for the poor response from FEMA. Additionally, he seemed even more removed as pictures showed him sitting comfortable in Air Force One as he surveyed the damage.)
A: He was viewed as insensitive and detached from everyday people.

Q: The Great Recession of 2008 was the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. What caused the Great Recession?
- The outsourcing of jobs to foreign markets led to mass unemployment and reduced spending. (Incorrect. The outsourcing of jobs was a concern, but it had been taking place over the last several years and was not responsible for the Great Recession.)
- Several major investment companies were found to be inflating their profits causing people to withdraw their investments. (Incorrect. Some investment companies were falsely inflating their assets and collapsed as a result, but this did not trigger the Great Recession.)
- As a result of wage stagnation, consumer spending plummeted, causing the whole economy to collapse. (Incorrect. Wages had not been growing at the same rate as inflation, but this only drove people to buy on credit, not stop spending entirely.)
- Banks had become less regulated and engaged in risky lending practices. (Correct! In the 1990s President Clinton deregulated credit default swaps encouraging banks to make bad loans. Throughout the 2000s banks approved more and more home loans to those who could not afford them.)
A: Banks had become less regulated and engaged in risky lending practices.

Q: In 2008 the economy was failing, and The Great Recession was beginning. To prevent a complete economic collapse the federal government intervened. How did the United States government attempt to correct the failure of financial institutions?
- The federal government approved a multibillion dollar deal to forgive the remaining debt on subprime mortgages. (Incorrect. Millions of homeowners who had expected to sell their houses at a profit and pay off their adjustable-rate mortgages were now stuck in houses with values shrinking below their purchasing price and forced to make mortgage payments they could no longer afford.)
- The federal government began a federal works program in an effort to reduce the rampant unemployment. (Incorrect. A federal works program did not happen at this time. However, the auto industry did receive a bailout enabling many workers to stay employed.)
- The Federal Reserve approved a multi billion dollar deal to keep small businesses in business. (Incorrect. Many small businesses failed because they were no longer able to get credit to pay employees and buy supplies from banks wary of loaning money.)
- The Federal Reserve approved a multibillion dollar deal to bailout the failing institutions. (Correct! Members of Congress met with Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson to find a way to head off the crisis. They agreed to use $700 billion in federal funds to bail out the troubled institutions.)
A: The Federal Reserve approved a multibillion dollar deal to bailout the failing institutions.

Q: As the Great Recession wore on, more and more people were affected by the bad business practices of the financial institutions. What is one lasting effect of the Great Recession?
- A political movement, reminiscent of the early 20th century, forced the government into action. (Incorrect. Americans failed to generate anything like the social unrest seen in the early 20th century. One group, Occupy Wall Street, managed to generate a fair number of headlines and shift public discussion away from budget cuts and toward inequality, but it never gained much traction.)
- Financial institutions lost billions and took years to return to previous profit margins. (Incorrect. American banks quickly recovered and recaptured their steady profits, and the American stock market climbed again to new heights.)
- The job market quickly recovered adding more, high paying jobs, leading to a faster recovery. (Incorrect. Job growth was slow and unemployment rates would remain stubbornly high for years. Wages froze, meanwhile, and well-paying full-time jobs that were lost were too often replaced by low-paying, part-time work.)
- The wealth and income gap widened as the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. (Correct! The Great Recession only magnified already rising income and wealth inequalities. According to the chief investment officer at JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the United States, “profit margins have reached levels not seen in decades,” and “reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement.”)
A: The wealth and income gap widened as the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Q: As long as the United States has existed, there has been debate over who is a citizen and who can become a citizen. The 21st century is no exception to this debate. What is one example of trying to limit the influence of immigrants on American culture?
- Children arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border around 2013 were deported back to their home countries. (Incorrect. A 2008 law, originally intended to protect victims of human trafficking, guarantee children a court hearing before being potentially deported.)
- In 2006 congress passed a law that authorized the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border. (Incorrect. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act proposed by Congress in 2006 sought to strengthen security along the U.S.-Mexico border but the bill and a similar amended version both failed to become law.)
- The practice of nativism does not allow for any influence outside of Native American culture. (Incorrect. Nativism is the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants, in this case European immigrants, not Native Americans, against those of more recent immigrants.)
- There has been a movement to establish English as the official language of the United States. (Correct! There have been attempts to legally designate English as the official language of the United States, particularly in areas of the country with large Spanish-speaking populations such as Arizona.)
A: There has been a movement to establish English as the official language of the United States.

Q: In 1998, schools in Arizona began teaching Mexican American studies. Joseph enjoyed the classes and liked learning about his culture, but the classes were cut from the curriculum in 2010. Why were the classes stopped?
- Schools did not offer Indian American studies or African American studies, so it was considered unfair. (Incorrect. The law that forced the schools to stop teaching Mexican American studies did not prohibit programs teaching Indian students about their culture.)
- Most students did not enjoy the classes and it was regarded as a waste of tax money. (Incorrect. Many students enjoyed the classes. Additionally, the program began to convert high absentee rates and low academic performance among Latino students and proved highly successful.)
- The curriculum divided students and incidents of racial violence in the schools spiked. (Incorrect. There is no evidence of this happening. The program was enjoyed by students of many ethnicities.)
- It was believed the curriculum encouraged resentment of White people and of the U.S. government. (Correct! Public school superintendent Tom Horne objected to the course claiming it encouraged resentment of white people and of the U.S. government, and improperly encouraged students to think of themselves as members of a race instead of as individuals.)
A: It was believed the curriculum encouraged resentment of White people and of the U.S. government.

Q: While some Americans feel the need to protect American culture from immigrants, others have more quantifiable reasons. What is a reason, other than changing American culture, that some Americans want to limit the amount of people immigrating into the United States?
- They believe new immigrants do not ever fully assimilate into White American culture. (Incorrect. The belief that all immigrants do not assimilate completely into White-dominant American society makes some people fear American culture will change.)
- They are concerned that White people will no longer be a majority in America. (Incorrect. This is a concern to some Americans, but this is more aligned with the fear of American culture changing from immigrant influence.)
- They believe the American way of life is superior to that of other cultures. (Incorrect. This is a white supremist belief that aligns with the fear of a changing American culture.)
- They believe immigrants are taking jobs from American workers. (Correct! During the Great Recession, many Americans believed immigrants were taking jobs and leaving Americans unable to find work.)
A: They believe immigrants are taking jobs from American workers.

Q: In the late 1990s the idea of same-sex marriage became a more openly discussed topic among American citizens. What event brought the discussion to the forefront of politics?
- Many states began quietly amending their constitutions in anticipation of upcoming laws. (Incorrect. States began amending their constitutions after a different event brought same-sex marriage to the forefront.)
- The United States supreme court ruled that same-sex marriages were constitutional. (Incorrect. The supreme court did not rule on same-sex marriage until 2015, long after many states had passed their own laws. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage.)
- The American people were given the chance to vote for or against same-sex marriage. (Incorrect. Some states, like California, let the issue go to a vote but many states just amended their constitutions. There was never a nationwide vote.)
- Vermont allowed same-sex couples to form a state recognized civil union. (Correct! Vermont’s decision to allow same-sex couples to form state-recognized civil unions in which they could enjoy all the legal rights and privileges of marriage was the first of its kind. Following Vermont’s lead, several other states legalized same-sex marriages or civil unions among LGBTQIA+ couples.)
A: Vermont allowed same-sex couples to form a state recognized civil union.

Q: In the 1990s discussions around same sex-marriage began to increase. How have attitudes about same-sex marriage changed since the late 1990s among political figures?
- Many politicians in the 1990s supported same-sex marriage and many still do. (Incorrect. In the 1990s, the potential of same-sex marriage becoming legal was slim because neither the Republican nor Democrat party openly supported it.)
- Little has changed since the 1990s and very few politicians support same-sex marriage still today. (Incorrect. As of 2014, leaders in both political parties are more receptive than ever before to the idea of same-sex marriage.)
- Republicans have increased their support for same-sex marriage while Democrats have reduced theirs. (Incorrect. As of 2014, leaders in both political parties are more receptive than ever before to the idea of same-sex marriage.)
- In the 1990s very few politicians supported same-sex marriage, now many do. (Correct! In the 1990s, neither the Republican or Democrat party openly supported same-sex marriage. However, as of 2014, leaders in both political parties are more receptive than ever before to the idea of same-sex marriage.)
A: In the 1990s very few politicians supported same-sex marriage, now many do.

Q: In the late 1990s and into the 2000s the American public had differing opinions on same-sex marriage. Many supported it while many were in opposition. What event shows how Americans, in general, became more progressive in their views on same-sex marriage?
- The passage of California’s ballot initiative, Proposition 8. (Incorrect. Proposition 8 prohibited same-sex marriage which was not progressive.)
- Vermont’s legalization of same-sex civil unions. (Incorrect. While this was a progressive move in Vermont, it was challenged in many other states.)
- Massachusetts’s supreme court decision allowing same-sex marriage. (Incorrect. This case affected only Massachusetts and did not reflect a wider view.)
- The U.S. supreme court ruling same-sex marriage constitutional. (Correct! This ruling put to rest any state level debates about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage showing an overall progressive stance on the subject.)
A: The U.S. supreme court ruling same-sex marriage constitutional.

Q: In 1998 the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol as an agreement to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses. However, Bush objected to the protocol and Congress never ratified the agreement. What reason did President Bush give for his objections to the agreement?
- He cited the disagreement amongst the scientific community about what caused global warming. (Incorrect. The scientific community had near unanimity stating that climate change is real and will have devastating consequences if left unchecked.)
- He referenced Al Gore’s documentary saying it was full of falsehoods and global warming is not happening. (Incorrect. The documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, produced by Al Gore came out several years after Bush declined to partake in the Kyoto Protocol.)
- He was concerned the United States was the only industrialized nation to sign the agreement. (Incorrect. One hundred ninety one nations signed the Kyoto Protocol including many other industrialized nations.)
- He was worried that by reducing carbon emissions, the U.S. economy would suffer. (Correct! President Bush objected to the requirement that major industrialized nations limit their emissions to a greater extent than other parts of the world and argued that doing so might hurt the American economy.)
A: He was worried that by reducing carbon emissions, the U.S. economy would suffer.

Q: Despite many conservatives denying climate change is a result of human activity, many other people have accepted mankind’s role in global warming. What did those who believe in climate change do to gain public support and help slow the rate of warming?
- They altered the results and wording of scientific studies to fit their agenda. (Incorrect. Scientific studies were actually altered in the other direction with third-party editing changing conclusions, and pressure on researchers to not use terms such as “global warming.”)
- They took no action as it was too late to stop the human behavior contributing to global warming. (Incorrect. They continued to work toward the reduction of carbon emissions and other human behavior that contributes to climate change.)
- Much of the world also denies climate change leaving American scientists with few allies to help enact change. (Incorrect. The fact that many American conservatives deny human responsibility for climate change is baffling to much of the rest of the world. There are many nations who support efforts to combat global warming.)
- They educated the public and formed committees and groups to combat global warming. (Correct! Many environmentalists, including Al Gore, continued to educate the public about global warming. Gore established Generation Investment Management, which sought to promote an environmentally responsible system of equity analysis and investment.)
A: They educated the public and formed committees and groups to combat global warming.

Q: Despite great evidence showing a human element to the changing climate and an overall warming of the earth some people still deny a human connection to climate change. Who would continue to promote the idea that global warming is not caused by human activity?
- people who believe in science (Incorrect. The science that shows a human connection is overwhelming. Those who do not believe in human caused climate change do not believe the scientific data.)
- economists (Incorrect. While some climate change deniers use the reason of climate change being too expensive to address, real economists know the economic impact will only compound the longer global warming is left unaddressed.)
- those concerned with global food supply (Incorrect. Climate change deniers attempt to make the excuse that a warmer world is better for growing crops. In reality, global warming is making summers dryer, making it harder for crops to grow and increasing desertification.)
- the fossil fuel industry (Correct! When fossil fuels are burned, they release large amounts of carbon dioxide into the air. Greenhouse gasses trap heat in our atmosphere, causing global warming. Oil and gas companies spend millions of dollars a year on lobbying to control, delay, or block binding climate policy.)
A: the fossil fuel industry

Q: While President Bush campaigned as the ‘education president”, President Obama had different goals. What domestic issue did Obama spend much of his campaign on?
- opposition to gun control (Incorrect. It was Mitt Romney who embraced conservative Tea Party values including opposition to gun control.)
- education (Incorrect. President Obama did sign the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) but he did not focus his campaign on education reform.)
- balancing the budget (Incorrect. This was John McCain’s campaign promise.)
- healthcare (Correct! President Obama campaigned on the promise to enact comprehensive healthcare reform.)
A: healthcare

Q: Most presidents are faced with a divided congress at some point in their term. How did the majority, minority balance in the House and Senate affect how effectively Presidents Bush and Obama could fulfill their domestic policy promises?
- Obama enjoyed an easy first term as Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. (Incorrect. Republican discontent over Obamacare helped Republicans capture the House majority in the 2010 midterm elections, making the next years difficult for President Obama to get legislation passed.)
- Obama enjoyed bipartisan support on bills that benefited public welfare like Obamacare. (Incorrect. Obama received very little Republican support for Obamacare despite the plan implementing the market-based reforms that Republicans had supported for years.)
- Both presidents struggled to pass any significant domestic legislation due to the lack of bipartisan support. (Incorrect. Although Bush generally had more bipartisan support, both presidents were able to pass some significant domestic policies.)
- Bush received much more bipartisan support than Obama did regardless of what party held the majority. (Correct! More of Bush’s policies, such as No Child Left Behind, the USA PATRIOT Act and the TARP program received bipartisan support. Obama however received very little Republican support especially with Obamacare despite the plan implementing the market-based reforms that Republicans had supported for years.)
A: Bush received much more bipartisan support than Obama did regardless of what party held the majority.

Q: Both President Bush and Obama attempted to stabilize the economy during the Great Recession of 2008. How did the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) passed under President Bush in 2008 differ from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) passed under President Obama in 2009?
- The ARRA bailed out banks but did little to help average Americans struggling in the Great Recession. (Incorrect. The EESA is what bailed out banks after the 2008 collapse.)
- The EESA attempted to put money directly into the economy by creating and saving jobs. (Incorrect. The ARRA intended to create new jobs and save current ones. The EESA focused mostly on saving banks and large financial institutions.)
- The EESA was criticized for not being large enough to actually help the economy. (Incorrect. The EESA was criticized by average Americans for spending too much money on bailing out banks. The ARRA was criticized by economists for not being large enough to make a difference.)
- The ARRA provided relief to struggling citizens in the form of tax breaks and unemployment benefits. (Correct! The ARRA provided tax cuts/credits and unemployment benefits for families, it also earmarked expenditures for healthcare, infrastructure, and education.)
A: The ARRA provided relief to struggling citizens in the form of tax breaks and unemployment benefits.

Q: As President Obama’s second term drew to a close there were, as always, several challenges facing America. One of those specific challenges was the ever rising cost of post secondary education. How did Obama attempt to increase access to higher education?
- He attempted to pass legislation making universities free to attend. (Incorrect. Obama did propose a plan, called America's College Promise, that would cover students' tuition for qualifying community college programs, so long as students maintain a 2.5 GPA.)
- He attempted to pass legislation forgiving all student debt. (Incorrect. While President Obama made an attempt to help student loan borrowers, he did not offer complete or total loan forgiveness.)
- He discouraged young people from attending universities. (Incorrect. While Obama did propose increased funds for trade schools, apprenticeships, and on-the-job training he never discouraged young people from attending universities.)
- He increased money available for the Pell Grant Fund. (Correct! President Obama sought to make higher education more accessible by increasing the amount of grants that students could receive under the federally funded Pell Grant Program.)
A: He increased money available for the Pell Grant Fund.

Q: In 2012, a Black teenager was shot to death by a neighborhood watch volunteer. Once the shooter was acquitted the hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter was introduced on twitter. How did the #BlackLivesMatter organization shape the years of Obama’s second term?
- #BlackLivesMatter did not get much attention and the unwarranted killings of Black people in America continued. (Incorrect. #BlackLivesMatter became a very well known organization that has influenced thousands of worldwide protests. Despite this, the unwarranted killing of Black people has continued.)
- The #BlackLivesMatter organization angered many people and was the motivation behind the Boston Marathon bombing. (Incorrect. The #BlackLivesMatter organization did anger many people, but the Boston Marathon bombing was carried out by extremists that had nothing to do with #BlackLivesMatter.)
- The #BlackLivesMatter movement brought awareness to the racist practices that keep Black people from getting jobs. (Incorrect. While there is systemic racism that reduces the chances a Black person will get a job interview, this has nothing to do with #BlackLivesMatter.)
- People of all races became more vocal in their protest against the unprovoked killing of Black people. (Correct! The #BlackLivesMatter organization has organized several protests in response to racial violence. Protests, while not always officially associated with #BlackLivesMatter, have taken place all over the world.)
A: People of all races became more vocal in their protest against the unprovoked killing of Black people.

Q: While in office President Obama endured 14 mass shootings, more than any previous administrations. How did this incredible number of mass shootings challenge America during the Obama presidency?
- The Sandy Hook massacre, where twenty young children were killed, was the tipping point needed to enact gun control. (Incorrect. Despite the vast majority of Americans in 2013 supporting common sense gun laws the National Rifle Association kept its influence in Congress and no laws were passed.)
- Many of the shootings were perpetrated by mentally ill people and Americans recognized the need for universal mental health care. (Incorrect. Many of the shooters were said to have mental health issues but this did nothing to promote the need for better, more accessible mental health care in America.)
- A majority of Americans continued to be against gun control, so no gun control laws were passed. (Incorrect. Numerous polls have shown a majority of people want common sense gun laws enacted. But, the influence of the National Rifle Association together with unpopular attempts to pass gun control laws in the past, Congress refused to act.)
- President Obama proposed common sense gun laws but nothing was ever passed by Congress. (Correct! Obama proposed closing background check loopholes, banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence. However, nothing was ever passed.)
A: President Obama proposed common sense gun laws but nothing was ever passed by Congress.

Q: As America plunged into the twenty first century mobile phones became more powerful and more popular. By 2015, two thirds of Americans owned a mobile computing device. In what way did this explosion in portable technology change the way Americans fought for racial justice?
- Smart technology did not change much as people continued to protest in person. (Incorrect. In person protests remained a popular and effective way to show discontent with the systemic racism that plagues the United States.)
- Use of technology forced the Obama and Trump administrations to enact long overdue civil rights legislation. (Incorrect. Despite as many as 25-million Americans having participated in racial justice demonstrations that summer, no great national policy changes quickly followed. The intractable racial injustices embedded deeply within American life had not been uprooted and racial disparities in wealth, education, health, and other measures persevered, as they already had, in the United States, for hundreds of years.)
- The irrefutable evidence of systemic racism, provided by the ability to record, forced a large behavior change. (Incorrect. Despite evidence showing repeated episodes of police violence, Black people continued to die at the hands of police officers with little action being taken by the government.)
- Bystanders could now record evidence of police brutality and share it quickly. (Correct! People could now use portable recording devices to document unfair and violent incidents. The recording could be used as evidence and shared with many people in a short amount of time.)
A: Bystanders could now record evidence of police brutality and share it quickly.

Q: The increase in portable technology changed the way America worked, socialized, and protested in the early twenty first century. Women took to social media to share stories and come together in solidarity with the creation of the hashtag #MeToo. How did the increase in technology help advance women’s rights?
- Public figures, such as President Trump, were relieved from jobs and responsibilities due to the publicity. (Incorrect. While some famous actors did lose acting contracts, many more people, Trump included, shrugged off stories and accusations as exaggerations and women being too sensitive.)
- The indisputable evidence of wide spread sexual harassment prompted national sexual harassment prevention education. (Incorrect. While some people took the accusations seriously no major action was taken. Many people continued to blame women for the problem.)
- The #MeToo movement did not change any behavior, prompted no legislation, and was quite short lived. (Incorrect. While no legislation was passed, thousands and perhaps millions of women united for protests bringing awareness to the issue. Many women found solidarity and public awareness was heightened.)
- Women were now able to share stories of sexual harassment widely, showing it was not an isolated problem. (Correct! The #MeToo movement empowered and enabled women to share stories of sexual harassment, abuse, and assault. They realized they were not alone and the general public began to understand these are not isolated incidents.)
A: Women were now able to share stories of sexual harassment widely, showing it was not an isolated problem.

Q: The main teaching of critical race theory is the idea that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies. How has the debate around critical race theory been broadened by the increase in social media usage?
- Most legislation surrounding critical race theory is done without publicity and students remain unaware of changes. (Incorrect. Extensive news coverage has brought CRT to the forefront. Students are able to use their own mobile technology devices to educate themselves and make informed decisions.)
- The debate over critical race theory never made it to social media, the debates were kept to school board meetings. (Incorrect. Social media played a large role in the discussion surrounding CRT. Anti-CRT groups posted anti-CRT propaganda to many major social media outlets spreading misinformation far and wide.)
- Critical race theory was never a hotly debated topic, social media influenced racial issues and LGBTAQ+ rights. (Incorrect. Critical race theory is a race issue as it deals directly with how race has been ingrained into American society. It also deals with how history treats Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC).)
- Students are now more aware of what their legislators are doing and have an avenue to advocate for themselves. (Correct! Thanks to the massive media store surrounding CRT, students are aware of what is happening in their districts. They are able to research topics for themselves as well as advocate for changes they hope to make.)
A: Students are now more aware of what their legislators are doing and have an avenue to advocate for themselves.

Q: President Trump, at his inaugural address, promised to end “American carnage” —a nation ravaged, he said, by illegal immigrants, crime, and foreign economic competition. How did Trump plan to save America?
- By implementing tax cuts for the lowest income earners to restore the economy. (Incorrect. His narrowly passed tax cut continued the redistribution of American wealth toward corporations and wealthy individuals, exploded the federal deficit, and further exacerbated America’s widening economic inequality.)
- By supporting renewable energy thus creating jobs and making America energy independent. (Incorrect. Trump withdrew the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement, the international accord to fight global warming. He also rescinded or weakened the two main domestic policy efforts that would have reduced emissions.)
- By ending the trade deficit and returning jobs to America. (Incorrect. The Trade deficit reached its highest level in 14 years. The America First trade policies made it difficult for farmers and other exporters to earn a profit.)
- By building a southern border wall and banning Muslim immigrants. (Correct! He promised to build a massive wall along the border to supplement the fence built under the Bush administration to keep out Mexican immigrants and bar Muslim immigrants.)
A: By building a southern border wall and banning Muslim immigrants.

Q: On January 6, 2020, protesters stormed the capital buildings and injured 150 capitol police officers and killed one. What was President Trump's role in the insurrection?
- He played no role, his supporters acted on their own after planning an attack over Twitter. (Incorrect. Trump agitated his followers and was impeached for inciting an insurrection. He was later found not guilty.)
- He called for the attackers to stop the insurrection after he realized how violent the mob had become. (Incorrect. The Capitol attackers injured about 150 of them. Officers suffered concussions, burns, bruises, stab wounds, and broken bones. The rioters held the Capitol for several hours before the National Guard cleared it that evening. Trump told his supporters rioting in and around the U.S. Capitol to “go home now,” but never called for an end to the violence.)
- He refused to admit he lost the election and organized the attack, with his supporters via an alt-right website. (Incorrect. While he did refuse to concede the election he did not use an alt-right website to organize the insurrection.)
- He refused to admit he lost the election and gave a speech encouraging his supporters to march on the capitol. (Correct! Biden won both the popular and the electoral vote. However, Trump refused to concede the election. On the afternoon of January 6, 2021, the president spoke and told the crowd of angry conspiracy-minded protestors to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell,” they did.)
A: He refused to admit he lost the election and gave a speech encouraging his supporters to march on the capitol.

Q: In late 2019 a novel coronavirus began spreading around the world. In early 2020, the United States confirmed its first case. A global pandemic had begun. What was Trump's handling of the COVID-19 outbreak?
- He took it seriously from the beginning, encouraging Americans to stay home when they could. (Incorrect. Trump did not believe the seriousness of the virus and told people to go to work, even if they felt sick.)
- He led by example by wearing a mask and following the advice of doctors. (Incorrect. He refused to wear a mask saying it wouldn’t look right for him to greet foreign dignitaries in a mask.)
- He fully backed the doctors and scientists and encouraged Americans to follow the CDC guidelines. (Incorrect. Many times he suggested he knew better than doctors and scientists and often suggested treatments that were not approved or recommended by doctors.)
- He did not think it was serious and delayed any response to help control the spread. (Correct! For several months Trump said COVID-19 was nothing more than the flu and it would soon miraculously disappear.)
A: He did not think it was serious and delayed any response to help control the spread.

Q: Mike, who considers himself a Republican, and Andy, who is a Democrat, have been friends for a long time. Their relationship has been strained since the debate of the United States’ role in foreign affairs has taken center stage in America. How can Andy and Mike have important and meaningful political conversations while still remaining friends?
- They should just go their separate ways, there is no way a Republican and Democrat can be friends. (Incorrect. They can both work to find common ground and be respectful of each other’s opinions. There are some topics, such as white supremacy, that a friend may not be able to agree to disagree with. However, an effort to help friends understand should be made before ending the friendship.)
- They should refrain from talking about anything political and keep conversations superficial. (Incorrect. Sharing ideas and viewpoints can help both people broaden their horizons and learn new things. By using civil discourse, they may be able to find some common ground.)
- They should both find the most polarizing facts to present to one another in an attempt to change their mind. (Incorrect. To better understand one another they should try to find a common ground where they can agree. Then they can expand their debates to other areas of the United States’ role in foreign affairs they disagree on.)
- They can discuss ideas and issues regarding immigration rather than their personal identity. (Correct! Mike and Andy can still discuss ideas and policies regarding the United States’ role in foreign affairs without labeling them as Republican or Democrat. They can strive to discuss their beliefs without attacking each other’s identity.)
A: They can discuss ideas and issues regarding immigration rather than their personal identity.

Q: Elliott is scrolling through Facebook when he comes across a comment from one of his friends he vehemently disagrees with. Elliott quickly types out a response calling his friend ignorant and bringing up a lot of polarizing facts to help prove his point. He posts the response and waits to see if his friend will respond. Elliott’s friend is hurt but wants to save the friendship, how should she respond to Elliott?
- She should publicly respond online, the same way Elliott did. (Incorrect. The personal attacks and use of polarizing information will only serve to increase tensions.)
- She should direct message Elliott and tell him he is the ignorant one. (Incorrect. She should not attack Elliott’s identity but rather just his ideas.)
- She should publicly comment pointing out the common ground they share. (Incorrect. Pointing out common ground can be extremely helpful but continuing the conversation online is not ideal.)
- She should set up a face to face meeting at a coffee shop with Elliott. (Correct! Research shows that hearing someone’s voice humanizes them and makes it easier to engage in civil discourse.)
A: She should set up a face to face meeting at a coffee shop with Elliott.

Q: Sarah and Patrick disagreed over the role the U.S. should play in ending the war between Russia and Ukraine. Sarah believed that the U.S. should send troops to assist the Ukrainians so that the war could end quickly. Fearing that the war would expand if U.S. direct military intervention were to take place, Patrick thought economic sanctions against Russia would be the most feasible response by the U.S. at this time. After an hour of discussion, Sarah and Patrick still couldn’t agree on anything but acknowledged that they had a shared reality, which was
- importance of U.S. leadership in maintaining world peace. (Incorrect. This supported Sarah’s point of view, but it is not clear whether Patrick would agree.)
- that economic sanctions would be the most effective way of ending the war. (Incorrect. Patrick would agree with this statement, but Sarah probably would not, since she supported direct military intervention.)
- direct military intervention would achieve the most immediate peaceful outcome of the war. (Incorrect. Patrick might not agree with this statement, which supported Sarah’s standpoint. Therefore this cannot be their shared reality in this situation.)
- the desire to end the war and see peace for Ukrainians. (Correct! Both Sarah and Patrick cared about peace for Ukrainians and did not want the war to continue.)
A: the desire to end the war and see peace for Ukrainians.

Q: What should be the focus when making a Rogerian argument?
- Identifying flaws in the other side’s argument. (Incorrect. This is not a focus of a Rogerian argument. The goal of the Rogerian argument is not to find fault with other people’s points of view.)
- Correcting what one perceives as the other side’s misconception. (Incorrect. Rogerian-style arguments do not focus on correcting other people’s opinions or labeling them as “misconceptions.”)
- Informing the audience of the speaker’s life story that shaped the speaker’s point of view on the issue. (Incorrect. While a personal story would be helpful in understanding where the speaker is coming from, the focus should be the speaker’s opinion and not his/her personal life story.)
- Finding common ground between the speaker and the audience. (Correct! The goal of a Rogerian debate is to locate and focus the discussion on common ground.)
A: Finding common ground between the speaker and the audience.

Q: Maeve is a high school student who really wants to go to the away football game this Friday with her friends. Maeve’s parents have never let her travel to an away game because they are worried something will happen while she is far away. Maeve decides to use her new Rogerian debate skills she just learned in her history class, on her parents. What will Maeve’s Rogerian argument sound like?
- I would like to go to the away football game this Friday. I understand you think it is dangerous for me to drive that far with my friends and be in a strange town unsupervised. You are being unfair and I don’t understand why you don’t trust me. I need more independence and this is the only way to do it. I have to prove my responsibility and this is the best way. (Incorrect. Maeve offers no middle ground here, she simply insists her parents give her what she wants.)
- I am going to an away football game this Friday with my friends. I understand you think it is dangerous for me to drive that far but that is ridiculous. My solution is for me to call you when we arrive safely at the game. This way I can have some independence and you can get over your fear. This solution will help us both get used to me being more responsible with more independence. (Incorrect. Here Maeve does not even introduce the problem, she only states her intentions. She does offer a compromise of calling her parents but she does not acknowledge her parents' fear. She is also being disrespectful and dismissive.)
- I would like to go to the away football game this Friday. I understand you think it is dangerous for me to drive that far with my friends and be in a strange town unsupervised but that fear is unfounded. My solution is for us to go anyway and prove how responsible I am. This way when nothing bad happens you will understand how unreasonable you have been. This solution will help us both get used to me being more responsible with more independence. (Incorrect. In this example, Maeve does not acknowledge her parents' concerns and just dismisses them. Her solution is unreasonable and offers no middle ground.)
- I would like to go to the away football game this Friday. I understand you think it is dangerous for me to drive that far with my friends and be in a strange town unsupervised. My suggestion is for you to drive, drop us off at the game, and then enjoy dinner while we are at the game. This way I can have some independence but you will still be close by if anything happens. This solution will help us both get used to me being more responsible with more independence. (Correct! In this example, Maeve presents the problem, acknowledges her parents’ concerns, presents her side, explains why her suggestion offers a middle ground and makes it clear how both sides benefit when they meet in the middle.)
A: I would like to go to the away football game this Friday. I understand you think it is dangerous for me to drive that far with my friends and be in a strange town unsupervised. My suggestion is for you to drive, drop us off at the game, and then enjoy dinner while we are at the game. This way I can have some independence but you will still be close by if anything happens. This solution will help us both get used to me being more responsible with more independence.

Q: The Rogerian method of argument seeks to emphasize the strong and valid points in an opponent’s argument. It encourages us to find common ground and a balanced perspective. This is a civil and respectful way to discuss a disagreement or solve an argument. However, the Rogerian method is not appropriate for all topics. What is an instance that the Rogerian argument technique may not work?
- When the other person holds a view of a topic that you are unwilling to compromise your own beliefs on. (Incorrect. Even if you are unwilling to change your own views and opinions you can still be respectful and civil. You can likely find a common ground, even if it's very narrow, without compromising your own beliefs.)
- When the other person holds a viewpoint that contradicts the mainstream belief on a particular topic. (Incorrect. Even if the person is in the minority with their opinion, it can still be a valid and well thought out opinion. You still may find some common ground and reach a balanced perspective.)
- When you consider yourself an expert on the subject and believe no one else can add to your knowledge. (Incorrect. Even if a person is very educated on a particular subject they can still learn from others. People have differing opinions and may cause even the most educated person to consider something in a new light.)
- When the other person holds views that are discriminatory toward a group or groups of people. (Correct! Some points of view have no valid points and can not be successfully countered. Ideas that are sexist, racist, classist, ageist, intolerant of religion or otherwise discriminatory are some examples.)
A: When the other person holds views that are discriminatory toward a group or groups of people.