Read charts and graphs about the past and say what they show

Grade 11 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Civilian and total labor force, 1940 to 1945

   Year	Women, civilian	Men, civilian	Men, with armed forces
   1940	14,160	41,480	41,870
   1941	14,640	41,270	42,740
   1942	16,110	40,300	44,110
   1943	18,700	36,840	45,600
   1944	19,170	35,460	46,520
   1945	19,030	34,830	45,870

   Data: US Census Bureau, Historical Statistics of the US, 1789-1945 (1949), series D 11-31, annual averages, age 14 and over. Counts are in thousands. The civilian labor force leaves out the armed forces; the total labor force adds them.

2. 1.

   Jun subtracts men's civilian count from men with the armed forces. By how much did the armed forces grow from 1941 to 1944, compared with women's civilian rise?

   • By about 4,530 thousand, the same as women's rise
   • By about 9,590 thousand, more than twice women's rise of 4,530 thousand
   • By about 1,470 thousand, a third of women's rise
   • By about 11,060 thousand, the 1944 level, nearly three times women's rise

3. Unemployed persons, four years

   Year	Unemployed (thousands)	Percent of civilian labor force
   1929	1,550	3.2
   1933	12,830	24.9
   1938	10,390	19.0
   1941	5,560	9.9

   Data: US Census Bureau, Historical Statistics of the US, Colonial Times to 1970 (1975), series D 85-86, annual averages. The count is in thousands: 1,550 means 1,550,000 people.

4. 2.

   Pia divides count by rate to estimate the civilian labor force. About how many thousand did it grow from 1933 to 1938?

   • About 2,440 thousand, the fall in the unemployed count over the years
   • About 54,700 thousand, the labor force in 1938 and not its growth since 1933
   • About 3,200 thousand: roughly 51,500 in 1933 and 54,700 in 1938
   • About 3,200 thousand fewer, since the labor force shrank as the jobless count fell

5. Women and men in the labor force, 1950 to 2000

   Year	Women in labor force (thousands)	Women's rate (percent)	Men's rate (percent)
   1950	18,389	33.9	86.4
   1960	23,240	37.7	83.3
   1970	31,543	43.3	79.7
   1980	45,487	51.5	77.4
   1990	56,829	57.5	76.4
   2000	66,303	59.9	74.8

   Data: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the labor force: a databook (2020), table 2, annual averages, civilians age 16 and over. The rate is the share of the civilian noninstitutional population that is in the labor force.

6. 3.

   Bo finds the number of women age 16 and over by dividing count by rate. About how many thousand more were there in 1960 than in 1950?

   • About 4,851 thousand, the rise in women's labor force count
   • About 61,600 thousand, the number of women in 1960 and not the growth since 1950
   • About 7,400 thousand: roughly 54,200 in 1950 and 61,600 in 1960
   • About 7,400 thousand fewer, since a rising rate means a shrinking population

7. Two counts of women in the civilian labor force

   Series	Year	Ages counted	Women (thousands)
   Census, 1949 supplement	1945	14 and over	19,030
   BLS, 2020 databook	1950	16 and over	18,389

   Data: US Census Bureau (series D 11-31) and US Bureau of Labor Statistics (table 2). Both are annual averages of the civilian labor force.

8. 4.

   Milo says 641 thousand fewer women were in the civilian labor force in 1950 than in 1945. What is the best response?

   • The series count different ages, 14 and over then 16 and over, so the drop may be an age effect
   • The Census count is an annual average and the BLS count is the figure for a single month
   • The drop is real, since both counts come from government agencies and are official
   • The BLS count must be wrong, since the Census series is the older and better known one

9. Women's rate in 1950, two government series

   Series	How it was taken	Rate (percent)
   Census, census-year rows	a count taken in April 1950	29.9
   BLS databook	an average of monthly survey results	33.9

   Data: US Census Bureau, Historical Statistics of the US (1975), series D 29-41; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the labor force: a databook (2020), table 2. Both series are for women, in 1950.

10. 5.

    Zee averages 29.9 and 33.9 to report 31.9 percent as the true 1950 rate. What is wrong with that?

    • Nothing is wrong, since averaging two government sources gives the true value
    • The average should weight the larger number more, since the series it comes from is newer
    • The two should be weighted by their sample sizes, which the table gives
    • The series measure differently, so the average matches neither; report each one

11. Use this

    Graph "Women in the labor force: percent of women, census years 1890 to 1970" (Data: US Census Bureau, Historical Statistics of the US, Colonial Times to 1970 (1975), series D 29-41, census-year rows). Census year across, 1890 to 1970, a mark every 10. Women in the labor force, percent of women up, 0 to 50, a mark every 10. The line "Women's rate" joins (1890, 18.2), (1900, 20.0), (1920, 22.7), (1930, 23.6), (1940, 25.8), (1950, 29.9), (1960, 35.7), (1970, 41.4) with straight pieces. Key: one point for each census year; the height is the percent of women in the labor force. Note: There is no 1910 point because the source table has none. The rates count women 14 and over through 1940 and 16 and over from 1950. Figures from 1960 include Alaska and Hawaii. Another count of the same censuses, in a 1953 Labor Department guide, gives 18.3 for 1890 and 25.7 for 1940 (sources differ); this graph uses the Census Bureau table.

13. 6.

    Kira compares the pace of change from 1890 to 1940 with the pace from 1940 to 1970. Which statement does the graph support?

    • About 7.6 points a decade before 1940 and 15.6 a decade after, about twice as fast
    • About 1.5 points a decade before 1940, about 5.2 after: more than three times as fast
    • The same pace in both spans, since the rate rose between each pair of census years
    • About 5.2 points a decade before 1940 and 1.5 a decade after, a slowing pace
14. 7.

    Ren says women's rate grew faster from 1900 to 1920 (up 2.7 points) than from 1890 to 1900 (up 1.8). What is the flaw?

    Use the picture in question 6.

    • Both numbers are percents of women, so they cannot be compared with one another
    • There is no flaw: 2.7 is larger than 1.8, so growth was clearly faster in 1900 to 1920
    • The graph has no 1910 point, so 1900 to 1920 cannot be compared with anything
    • The spans differ: twenty years against ten, so per decade it was 1.35 against 1.8

15. Use this

    Graph "Unemployed persons as a percent of the civilian labor force, 1936 to 1941" (Data: US Census Bureau, Historical Statistics of the US, Colonial Times to 1970 (1975), series D 85-86, annual averages). Year across, 1936 to 1941, a mark every 1. Unemployed, percent of the civilian labor force up, 0 to 30, a mark every 5. The line "Unemployment rate" joins (1936, 16.9), (1937, 14.3), (1938, 19.0), (1939, 17.2), (1940, 14.6), (1941, 9.9) with straight pieces. Key: one point for each year; the height is the percent of the civilian labor force without a job. Note: Context from the Federal Reserve: a second downturn came in 1937, and the Great Depression ended during World War II in 1941. For 1929 to 1939 the figures are estimates found by subtracting employment from the civilian labor force; from 1940 they come from a monthly survey.

16. 8.

    Tala says the rate fell 4.4 points, from 19.0 in 1938 to 14.6 in 1940. What caution does the note add?

    • 1940 is an estimate and 1938 a survey result, so the drop of 4.4 points is overstated
    • Both are survey results, so the drop of 4.4 points is exact and can be compared directly
    • Both are estimates made by subtraction, but the drop is still exactly 4.4 points
    • 1938 is an estimate by subtraction and 1940 a survey result, so two methods are compared

17. Civilian and total labor force, 1940 to 1945

    Year	Women, civilian	Men, civilian	Men, with armed forces
    1940	14,160	41,480	41,870
    1941	14,640	41,270	42,740
    1942	16,110	40,300	44,110
    1943	18,700	36,840	45,600
    1944	19,170	35,460	46,520
    1945	19,030	34,830	45,870

    Data: US Census Bureau, Historical Statistics of the US, 1789-1945 (1949), series D 11-31, annual averages, age 14 and over. Counts are in thousands. The civilian labor force leaves out the armed forces; the total labor force adds them.

18. 9.

    Noah's note says women's civilian labor force grew every year from 1940 to 1945. What should the note say?

    • It grew each year from 1940 to 1944, then dipped by about 140 thousand in 1945
    • It grew each year from 1940 to 1945, though by smaller amounts after the year 1943
    • It fell in both 1944 and 1945 as the war came to its end and women left their jobs
    • It grew from 1940 to 1943 and then stayed level at about 18,700 through 1945

19. Unemployed persons, four years

    Year	Unemployed (thousands)	Percent of civilian labor force
    1929	1,550	3.2
    1933	12,830	24.9
    1938	10,390	19.0
    1941	5,560	9.9

    Data: US Census Bureau, Historical Statistics of the US, Colonial Times to 1970 (1975), series D 85-86, annual averages. The count is in thousands: 1,550 means 1,550,000 people.

20. 10.

    Ari's note says 12.8 million Americans, 24.9 percent, were unemployed in 1933, so a quarter of all Americans were out of work. What should the note say?

    • A quarter of those with jobs in 1933, since the rate is a share of the employed
    • A quarter of adults, since the series counts the adults of any age in the country
    • A quarter of the civilian labor force (employed plus unemployed), not of the population
    • A quarter of adult men, since the rate counts those looking for work