First Multiple Choice

47/72

I left 8 unanswered.

Questions that gave me trouble:

- questions about the early Hapsburg's
- questions where you had to choose the most important factor
- philosophers

2nd Rough Draft

The late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century were major times for journalistic development. The world of journalism really began to take off and become known as what it is today. Freedom of press was an important concept which was invented during this time. The Peterloo Massacre in Manchester, England specifically played a major role in the bringing about of freedom of press. Freedom of press was the idea that newspapers, magazines, or any publications would be allowed to print any statement that was true without punishment from the government (Dictionary.com). The Peterloo Massacre caused The Times newspaper in London to change their ways of automatically supporting the government. This event brought about news articles and opinion pieces which called out the English government; this type of betrayal against the government in printed publications was unheard of. Papers around the country, continent, and even other continents took notice. Newspapers in the United States of America began to publish articles which spoke more freely and even challenged their own government (“July 4, 1918”). Eventually an amendment was added to their constitution which guaranteed freedom of press. These occurrences changed the way journalism is thought of today. Before this time period, journalism was thought of as a profession or activity in which authors wrote what the government wanted the general public to know (Oxford Dictionaries Online). Today journalism is thought of as an activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television (Oxford Dictionaries Online). This change is all due to the Times paper in London. Whereas other newspapers refrained from commenting on the Peterloo Massacre, The Times of London actually called out the English government for the shooting of innocent civilians; in doing so, The Times ushered in the era of modern journalism.

            Newspapers before the eighteenth century could not be qualified as newspapers today. The modern definition of a newspaper is a publication containing news and comment on current events combined with features, opinion pieces, and advertisements that usually appear daily or weekly on multiple sheets of folded large pieces of paper. In the seventeenth century and earlier newspapers were more like magazines or pamphelets (“April 7, 1689”). Most newspapers were only one or two pages long, and they were on normal size sheets of paper. Pamphelets were more popular than large newspapers since the information in pamphelets was normally very similar to the information in the newspapers. The authors of papers in these times were also not thought of as journalists or the press. The term press came into existence around the 1700s. According to Oxford Dictionaries Online, the press means journalists or newspapers viewed collectively. But the press still was not like it is today. The press did not really consist of reporters and journalists; it was more like a group of authors who wanted to inform the people. Newspapers were still a social outlet for the most part. The press before the eighteenth century had more freedom to write creatively, therefore; writers could be more easily coined as authors since the write was not necessarily straightforward.  

            Many journalists in the seventeenth century and earlier did not write about small news events. Newspaper articles were mostly about social gatherings and events going on in the local areas of the newspapers. Small news events were not interesting to most people of the time because the people who read mostly belonged to the upper class. The upper class did not care as much about crime and other news worthy events; they cared about this week and next week’s social outings. Despite this, major events normally made it into the newspapers. For example, the Lisbon Earthquake in Portugal, which occurred in 1755, had many articles written about it all across Europe. Special issues of papers were even put out to discuss the news aspect and lifestyle of the earthquake. Most major news events did not have articles written about it more than once or twice but this earthquake demonstrated how a few events or happenings could change centuries of built up ideas (add citation). This happening was about sixty years before the Peterloo Massacre but it was a foreshadowing of how the journalistic world was about to change.

Another difference between newspapers back then was that there were very few daily newspapers. The few papers that were daily newspapers had many advertisements in them to fill space and keep the papers running. The Times of London was one of these few daily newspapers, however, it was known as The Daily Registeroriginally (October 27, 1819). Daily newspapers became more abundant after the invention of the steam-powered printing machine. The steam-powered printing machine is a printing press which uses steam power to print text or pictures from type or plates (Oxford Dictionaries Online). This invention quadrupled the amount of papers which could be printed in one day. Before the invention of the steam-powered printing machine, newspapers had to use the Gutenberg printing press. The Gutenberg printing press was a machine that pressed inked set type or etched plates onto papers or textiles that were fed through it (Dictionary.com). This invention was created in the mid-fifteenth century. It revolutionized printing of the time but the steam-powered printing machine really furthered the development of journalism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Regardless of these developments, the majority of newspapers in the eighteenth century were controlled by government. The Times, itself had made a deal with the government to print government-approved stories. The first editor of The Times, John Walter, was the man who brokered the deal. “He [John Walter] was able to negotiate a secret deal where he was paid £300 a year to publish stories favorable to the government” (“The Times”). Once, John Walter printed something unfavorable about the Prince of Wales and he was fined £50 and sentenced to two years in Newgate Prison. This was one of the last times Walter wrote something that went against the government. An article ran under the time of Walter’s editorship which was entitled “Parliamentary Intelligence.” The article discussed the House of Lords and what actions they were taking to help better London. It was an article strictly put in the paper to show that The Times was listening to the English government. It says, “Several Private Bills were also read a second time” (“May 13, 1805). In the context of the article, this statement was made to gather support for the House of Lords by making it seem as if this parliamentary branch was really working to better England.

References

April 7, 1689. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=15393326&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=1&currentPage=0&fpo=False

August 28, 1819. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=158721777&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=1&currentPage=10&fpo=False

Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Dictionary.com | Free Online Dictionary for English Definitions. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://dictionary1.classic.reference.com/help/ahd4.html

July 4, 1918. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=53889954&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=3&currentPage=0&fpo=False

May 13, 1805. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 7, 2011, from http://www.newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=7299897&src=browse

May 17, 1832.. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=153188326&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=1&currentPage=0&fpo=False

Modern History Sourcebook: Chartism: The People's Petition, 1838. (n.d.).FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1838chartism.html

Modern History Sourcebook: Samuel Bamford (1788-1872): Passages in the Life of aRadical-on the Peterloo Massacre, 1819. (n.d.). FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1819bamford.html

Modern History Sourcebook: The Peterloo Massacre, 1819 . (n.d.).FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1819peterloo.html

November 1, 1819. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=153087783&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=2&currentPage=0&fpo=False

October 27, 1819. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 7, 2011, from http://www.newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=7476115&src=browse

Oxford Dictionaries Online - English Dictionary and Language Reference. (n.d.).Oxford Dictionaries Online - English Dictionary and Language Reference. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://oxforddictionaries.com/?attempted=true

September 28, 1854. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=158847178&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=2&currentPage=10&fpo=False

WWI DBQ

World War I, " the Great War," involved all of the great powers of Europe and killed more than eight million soldiers.  Discuss the reasons which led to the rising international tensions that sparked World War I.


World War I, also known as the Great War, was a major result of all the international tensions that had been rising during the 19th century. The great powers of Europe, such as  Germany; England; Russia; and France, finally met in a war that affected the rest of Europe. Despite all these world powers being involved, smaller countries were the reason for the war. World War I is often thought of as war between the great world powers, however; the war was actually started because of fighting going on between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, which was caused, by the grouping together of all Slavs and Austrians during the revolutions of 1848. 


Tensions between Austria Hungary and Serbia had been arising since the early 19th century. During the early 19th century, Austria Hungary and Serbia were both part of the German principalities. Therefore, all types of people, Serbians; Bosnians; Czechoslovakians; and Austrians, were all forced together in one area. All these types of different people had to live together. The Slavs, Serbians; Bosnians; and Czechoslovakians, made up the majority of area, but they were still oppressed. The Austrians and Germans in the area, however, are the minority but they are receiving better treatment. So around 1848 the Slavs try to revolt against the government, but are shut down. The Slavs are oppressed until Germany finally unifies in 1870, in which Austria becomes its own separate nation, as does Serbia. All Slavs are finally able to unite in Serbia (doc. 6). However, the reader must take into consideration that doc. 6 was written by members of the Black Hand, a secret Serbian society, therefore, not all Serbians might have felt as extremely as these members did. However, the tension between Austrians and Serbians does not go away. Each nation feels very differently and wants to get revenge on the other (doc. 5). This document was written by a historian looking back at the tensions that led to World War I, and therefore are not completely accurate. These tensions are the cause of World War I. 


The tensions caused before and during the revolutions of 1848 between Serbia and Austria-Hungary continued to escalate once the two countries were separate nations. Serbia brought the tensions to a new level when one Serbian assassinated Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife of Austria-Hungary (doc. 8). This information was sent in a telegram between Germany and Russia and therefore, Germany being allied with Austria-Hungary was more bias towards defending one country over another. After this event, Austria confirmed its alliance with Germany and threatened to declare war on Serbia. Serbia also checked its alliance with Russia and prepared for war. On July 28, 1914 Austria-Hungary officially declared war on Serbia (doc. 7). Document 7 is not very biased since it is a telegram in which it discusses Austria declaring war on Serbia. The only biased part of the telegram is the part that talks about why Austria declared war on Serbia. Germany soon followed Austria-Hungary and declared war on Russia (doc. 9). Germany knew war was inevitable and hurried along the process of starting the war. 


Austria-Hungary and Serbia were the main cause of World War I. These two countries hated each other and, therefore, started a fight that resulted in a major war. Serbia was allied with Russia who was allied with France so when the war began Serbia had two world powers on it's side (doc. 2). This document is the treaty between the countries of the Triple Entente and is therefore biased against countries of the Central Powers. This became known as the Triple Entente. Later on, England joined the side of France and Russia, because England was allied with Belgium, whom Germany had declared war on. Eventually, the United States also joined the war on the side of the Triple Entente. Austria-Hungary was allied with Germany, who inevitably began the war (doc. 1). This document is the treaty between the Central Powers and is therefore biased against the countries of the Triple Entente. Once the war involved all these major powers, the tensions escalated. The war became more of a war between Germany and the rest of the world. The Germans believed they were superior to all other types of people; racism was a big issue during World War I (doc. 3). This document is an excerpt from a German writer's book, who is biased because he agrees that Germans are superior. Also, the Germans wanted to expand their empire to all parts of the world. The Germans believed that since they were superior, their empire should be the largest (doc. 4). This document is written by a historian looking back on World War I, so he was not there first hand to experience the events. 


World War I was a long war which was caused by tensions and racism across the continent. Austria-Hungary and Serbia were the main reason for the war, and they brought major powers into their conflict. If it was not for these two countries the war might not have happened or it might have just been put off longer. This war and the reasons for it is a good example of how little tensions can arise into big problems. 

Late 19th Century DBQ

Using the pictures as a starting point, describe the extent of these changes and their effects on working and middle class Europeans in the second half of the nineteenth century. 

The working and middle classes of Europe during the 19th century experienced drastic changes. The 19th century was a time during which new technologies were being made and social classes were being redefined. New technologies is industry brought about new ideas in the treatment of people. The working and middle classes began the nineteenth century with no rights and barely any impact; but due to the ideas of socialism, such as better pay and more involvement in the government,  they were able to increase their social power and make a stand.

In the beginning of the 19th century most people were working in factories due to the industrial revolution. All members of the family, fathers; mothers, and children, worked to earn wages in factories. They had to work long hours and in return, they received barely any pay (doc. 1). The clothing worn in the first picture is a reflection of the little wages people received for their work. All members of the family look disgruntled, tired, hungry, and overworked (doc. 1). There were no laws that prevented factory owners from treating their workers unjustly; therefore, most of the middle and working class was poor (doc. 1). However, the painter of the first picture was probably a poor factory worker who wanted to depict his own social status as something that was not to be desired. The painter was either someone from the middle working class or someone who was sympathetic to that class. 

Towards the second half of the 19th century, the middle and working class started to become more wealthy and prominent. The main reason behind these changes was socialistic ideas. Ideas from those such as Marx, Engels, Owen, and many others brought about these changes. Socialistic thinkers believed that the working and middle class should have more freedoms and rights; this is depicted in the second picture (doc. 2). The second picture shows a scene in which the middle class citizens are roaming the city in nice clothing (doc. 2). The clothing suggests that the middle/working class makes more money because they can afford this new higher standard of living. In the 1840s, acts were passed, such as the Mines Act of 1842 and the Ten Hours Act of 1847, in England which showed the progress of the middle and working class. These changes could be the reason for the change depicted in the second picture. The painter of the second picture could have bias because they could have been a higher class citizen making it seem as if the middle class was well of (doc. 2).

The middle and working class really began to change during the mid-nineteenth century. It was a time when socialists were began to express their ideas that people should be equal; this idea of socialism was the fundamental changing point. Robert Owen, a cotton lord, specifically had an impact. He tried to better the lives of his employees. He set an example for other landowners and factory owners. Owen increased the pay of his workers and lowered their hours. Small acts like this highly increased the way of life for the middle and working class. The middle class became larger because of these changes and it also became more wealthy.

The nineteenth century changed the way people look at the middle and working class. This class of people was no longer considered below par. The middle class had become larger and in some senses more prominent or important than the high class. Around this time cities also became more developed because the middle class and working class was growing near the factories. Also these families could afford more because of these new changes due to socialism. Both pictures provide accurate descriptions of the changes that occurred during this time. However, bias of the painters must still be taken into consideration. 

First Rough Draft

The late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century were major times for journalistic development. The world of journalism really began to take off and become known as what it is today. Freedom of press was an important concept which was invented during this time. The Peterloo Massacre in Manchester, England specifically played a major role in the bringing about of freedom of press. Freedom of press was the idea that newspapers, magazines, or any publications would be allowed to print any statement that was true without punishment from the government (Dictionary.com). The Peterloo Massacre caused The Times newspaper in London to change their ways of automatically supporting the government. This event brought about news articles and opinion pieces which called out the English government; this type of betrayal against the government in printed publications was unheard of. Papers around the country, continent, and even other continents took notice. Newspapers in the United States of America began to publish articles which spoke more freely and even challenged their own government (“July 4, 1918”). Eventually an amendment was added to their constitution which guaranteed freedom of press. These occurrences changed the way journalism is thought of today. Before this time period, journalism was thought of as a profession or activity in which authors wrote what the government wanted the general public to know (Oxford Dictionaries Online). Today journalism is thought of as an activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television (Oxford Dictionaries Online). This change is all due to the Times paper in London. Whereas other newspapers refrained from commenting on the Peterloo Massacre, The Times of London actually called out the English government for the shooting of innocent civilians; in doing so, The Times ushered in the era of modern journalism.

            Newspapers before the eighteenth century could not be qualified as newspapers today. The modern definition of a newspaper is a publication containing news and comment on current events combined with features, opinion pieces, and advertisements that usually appear daily or weekly on multiple sheets of folded large pieces of paper. In the seventeenth century and earlier newspapers were more like magazines or pamphelets (“April 7, 1689”). Most newspapers were only one or two pages long, and they were on normal size sheets of paper. Pamphelets were more popular than large newspapers since the information in pamphelets was normally very similar to the information in the newspapers. The authors of papers in these times were also not thought of as journalists or the press. The term press came into existence around the 1700s. According to Oxford Dictionaries Online, the press means journalists or newspapers viewed collectively. But the press still was not like it is today. The press did not really consist of reporters and journalists; it was more like a group of authors who wanted to inform the people. Newspapers were still a social outlet for the most part. The press before the eighteenth century had more freedom to write creatively, therefore; writers could be more easily coined as authors since the write was not necessarily straightforward.  

            Many journalists in the seventeenth century and earlier did not write about small news events. Newspaper articles were mostly about social gatherings and events going on in the local areas of the newspapers. Small news events were not interesting to most people of the time because the people who read mostly belonged to the upper class. The upper class did not care as much about crime and other news worthy events; they cared about this week and next week’s social outings. Despite this, major events normally made it into the newspapers. For example, the Lisbon Earthquake in Portugal, which occurred in 1755, had many articles written about it all across Europe. Special issues of papers were even put out to discuss the news aspect and lifestyle of the earthquake. Most major news events did not have articles written about it more than once or twice but this earthquake demonstrated how a few events or happenings could change centuries of built up ideas (add citation). This happening was about sixty years before the Peterloo Massacre but it was a foreshadowing of how the journalistic world was about to change.

Another difference between newspapers back then was that there were very few daily newspapers. The few papers that were daily newspapers had many advertisements in them to fill space and keep the papers running. The Times of London was one of these few daily newspapers, however, it was known as The Daily Register originally (October 27, 1819). Daily newspapers became more abundant after the invention of the steam-powered printing machine. The steam-powered printing machine is a printing press which uses steam power to print text or pictures from type or plates (Oxford Dictionaries Online). This invention quadrupled the amount of papers which could be printed in one day. Before the invention of the steam-powered printing machine, newspapers had to use the Gutenberg printing press. The Gutenberg printing press was a machine that pressed inked set type or etched plates onto papers or textiles that were fed through it (Dictionary.com). This invention was created in the mid-fifteenth century. It revolutionized printing of the time but the steam-powered printing machine really furthered the development of journalism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Regardless of these developments, the majority of newspapers in the eighteenth century were controlled by government. The Times, itself had made a deal with the government to print government-approved stories. The first editor of The Times, John Walter, was the man who brokered the deal. “He [John Walter] was able to negotiate a secret deal where he was paid £300 a year to publish stories favorable to the government” (“The Times”). Once, John Walter printed something unfavorable about the Prince of Wales and he was fined £50 and sentenced to two years in Newgate Prison. This was one of the last times Walter wrote something that went against the government. An article ran under the time of Walter’s editorship which was entitled “Parliamentary Intelligence.” The article discussed the House of Lords and what actions they were taking to help better London. It was an article strictly put in the paper to show that The Times was listening to the English government. It says, “Several Private Bills were also read a second time” (“May 13, 1805). In the context of the article, this statement was made to gather support for the House of Lords by making it seem as if this parliamentary branch was really working to better England.

References

April 7, 1689. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=15393326&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=1&currentPage=0&fpo=False

August 28, 1819. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=158721777&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=1&currentPage=10&fpo=False

Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Dictionary.com | Free Online Dictionary for English Definitions. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://dictionary1.classic.reference.com/help/ahd4.html

July 4, 1918. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=53889954&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=3&currentPage=0&fpo=False

May 13, 1805. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 7, 2011, from http://www.newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=7299897&src=browse

May 17, 1832.. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=153188326&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=1&currentPage=0&fpo=False

Modern History Sourcebook: Chartism: The People's Petition, 1838. (n.d.). FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1838chartism.html

Modern History Sourcebook: Samuel Bamford (1788-1872): Passages in the Life of aRadical-on the Peterloo Massacre, 1819. (n.d.). FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1819bamford.html

Modern History Sourcebook: The Peterloo Massacre, 1819 . (n.d.). FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1819peterloo.html

November 1, 1819. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=153087783&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=2&currentPage=0&fpo=False

October 27, 1819. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 7, 2011, from http://www.newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=7476115&src=browse

Oxford Dictionaries Online - English Dictionary and Language Reference. (n.d.). Oxford Dictionaries Online - English Dictionary and Language Reference. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://oxforddictionaries.com/?attempted=true

September 28, 1854. (n.d.). NewspaperARCHIVE.com  . Retrieved March 13, 2011, from http://newspaperarchive.com/PdfViewerTags.aspx?img=158847178&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=2&currentPage=10&fpo=False

FRQ on Italian Unification

2. Contrast Mazzini and Garibaldi's revolutionary views with those of revolutionaries in France.


Mazzini and Garibaldi were both revolutionaries of the nineteenth century in Italy. Both men played a role in Italian unification, however, they had different ideas. These men can be compared to revolutionaries from the French Revolution. Mazzini and Garibaldi, unlike Robespierre and Napoleon of France, had good intentions of making their country a better place, based on the idea of helping and listening to smaller communities of the country, yet neither man was successful until they had help from a more powerful leader. 


Mazzini was in touch with the lower classes of Italian principalities. He believed that the key to making Italy a better, unified country was to make the wealthier, richer principalities listen to the people of the smaller ones. Mazzini, with the help of Garibaldi, gathered a following and led a revolution in Lombardy. This is the opposite of what Robespierre of France did. He let other people gather and make a move against the government and then he stepped in. Robespierre made the smarter choice because this attempt by Mazzini was squashed by a more powerful Italian leader, Cavour. Mazzini and Garibaldi both fled the area, hoping to avoid the wrath of Cavour.


After the attempt, Garibaldi was brought back to Italy by Cavour. Cavour wanted Garibaldi to gather a following of lower class people in Southern Italy so that Cavour could unite Italy. Garibaldi did as he was asked because he still achieved his goal of uniting the smaller principalities for the better. He would have never been successful at uniting his people without the help of Cavour. Napoleon was the opposite of Garibaldi; he was much more like Cavour. Napoleon gathered followings but he gathered followings of important people of higher ranks so that his cause would be more successful. He made important friends and connections through his time in the military. By the time he tried to make his major move of power, he already had a huge group of followers. 


Mazzini and Garibaldi were revolutionaries who thought they could change things for the better through helping the oppressed. However, by trying to help the oppressed, they ignored the richer classes. This mistake turned out to be huge. The upper class had military personnel and powerful leaders who were easily able to take down Mazzini's and Garibaldi's revolutionary attempts. If Mazzini and Garibaldi had paid more attention to their enemies as well as there followers, like Napoleon, they might have been more successful on their own.


Unification attempts were happening all over Europe in the mid-nineteenth century. Italy finally achieved unification through the work of Cavour, who was assisted by Garibaldi. Garibaldi and Mazzini were unsuccessful on their own. If they had followed some of the tactics of revolutionaries in France they might have been more successful.

Review of Page 172 in Kaplan

1. C
2. A
3. D
4. C
5. B
6. A
7. D
8. B
9. E
10. C
11. E
12. A
13. C
14. B
15. D
16. D
17. A
18. B
19. C
20. A