Tariffs, quotas, exchange rates and the balance of trade
Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet

Circle the best answer.
Read this first
Use this
Exchange rates, 2021 to 2024 (Federal Reserve Board, H.10 exchange rates, read Nov 14, 2026). Columns: Year, Japanese yen per U.S. dollar, U.S. dollars per euro. 2021, 109.77, 1.1834; 2022, 131.46, 1.0538; 2023, 140.49, 1.0817; 2024, 151.46, 1.0818. Each figure is a yearly average of monthly rates. A currency appreciates when it buys more of another currency. Trade also depends on incomes at home and abroad and on how slowly buyers change their orders.
Ari reads the yen column from 2021 to 2024. Which statement does the table support?
- The dollar appreciated against the yen: it bought about 38 percent more yen in 2024 than in 2021
- The yen appreciated against the dollar by about 38 percent, since the number of yen per dollar rose
- The dollar appreciated about 38 percent against the euro as well, since both columns show a change
- The yen lost about 38 percent of its value in dollars, since each dollar buys 38 percent more yen
A machine made in the U.S. keeps a price of $50,000. Bo finds what Japanese buyers pay in 2021 and 2024. Which result is right?
- About 7.6 million yen in 2021 and 5.5 million yen in 2024, so the machine costs Japanese buyers less
- The same in both years, since its dollar price did not change between 2021 and 2024
- About 5.5 million yen in 2021 and 7.6 million in 2024, so Japanese buyers pay 38 percent more
- About 456 yen in 2021 and 330 yen in 2024, since dollars are divided by the yen rate
A columnist says the weaker yen shows the U.S. trade deficit with Japan must have widened. Jun tests it against the table. What is the verdict?
- Shown: the dollar appreciated, and an appreciation widens the deficit by definition in the same year
- Not shown: exchange rates do not affect trade, so the table can describe currencies
- Not shown: the table gives rates, and trade balances also depend on incomes and slow orders
- Shown: a weaker yen raises U.S. imports from Japan by the same percent as the exchange-rate change
Kira compares the tariff line with the quota line. Which statement does the table support?
- The quota is cheaper for buyers, since it limits imports directly and does not tax them
- The tariff costs buyers more, since the government keeps $8,000 and under a quota buyers pay nothing extra
- They differ in imports, since a quota fixes imports at 400 but a tariff lets them fall below 400
- They give the same price, output and purchases; they differ in who gets the $8,000 gap on 400 imports
Home makers gain about $9,000 and the government collects $8,000. Milo adds these to buyers' loss of about $19,000. What is the net?
Use the picture in question 4.
- The country loses about $19,000, the loss to buyers, since the other gains are transfers
- The country loses about $2,000, though home makers and the government gain
- The country gains about $17,000, the gains of home makers and the government
- The country breaks even, since the revenue of $8,000 repays buyers in full
A speaker says a tariff raises revenue and protects jobs, so it makes the country better off. Noah tests the claim. What is the verdict?
Use the picture in question 4.
- Strong: the tariff earns $8,000, which is more than the $2,000 net loss it causes
- Weak: makers and the government gain about $17,000, below buyers' loss of $19,000
- Strong: revenue and jobs are both gains, and the table shows both for the tariff line
- Weak: tariffs raise no revenue, since imports fall when the price rises
Output per worker-day in two countries (example figures, made up for practice)
Country Bushels of wheat Bolts of cloth Alta 8 4 Bree 3 2 A worker-day makes either the wheat or the cloth shown, not both. Absolute advantage means more output per worker-day. Comparative advantage means a lower opportunity cost.
Alta makes more of both goods. Pia asks whether Alta should also make its own cloth. Which reasoning is best?
- Alta should specialize in wheat: a bolt of cloth costs it 2 bushels but Bree just 1.5
- Neither should trade, since Bree cannot make either good as well as Alta can
- Alta should specialize in cloth, since its 4 bolts per worker-day are more than Bree's 2
- Alta should make both, since a country that is better at both goods needs no trade
Alta will buy cloth from Bree for wheat. Ren asks which price of one bolt, in bushels, leaves both better off. Which is it?
- 2 bushels, which equals Alta's cost, so both countries are better off at that price
- 1 bushel, which is below both countries' costs, so buyers on both sides gain
- 1.75 bushels, which is above Bree's cost of 1.5 and below Alta's cost of 2
- 2.5 bushels, which is above both countries' costs, so sellers on both sides gain
Bree's wheat farmers ask for a tariff on Alta's wheat. Tala checks the costs in the table. Which statement is best supported?
- A tariff helps Bree, since Alta makes more wheat per worker-day and so can undersell Bree's farmers
- A tariff is wise, since a country should make what it can at home whatever it costs to do so
- A tariff changes nothing, since Bree has no comparative advantage in wheat to protect
- It would shield Bree's farmers but block cheaper wheat: Alta gives up 0.5 bolt a bushel, Bree 0.67
A speaker says Bree cannot compete with Alta, so it should not trade. Zee tests the claim. What is the verdict?
- Not supported: trade helps just the poorer country, so Alta would be worse off
- Supported: a country without an absolute advantage in either good gains nothing from trade
- Supported: Alta makes more wheat and more cloth, so Bree has nothing it can sell to Alta
- Not supported: Bree has the lower cost of cloth, 1.5 bushels against 2, so trade can help both