Read charts and graphs about the past and say what they show
Grade 11 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me
Circle the best answer.
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.
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 1,470 thousand, a third of women's rise
- By about 9,590 thousand, more than twice women's rise of 4,530 thousand
- By about 11,060 thousand, the 1944 level, nearly three times women's rise
- By about 4,530 thousand, the same as women's rise
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.
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 3,200 thousand fewer, since the labor force shrank as the jobless count fell
- 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
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.
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
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.
Zee averages 29.9 and 33.9 to report 31.9 percent as the true 1950 rate. What is wrong with that?
- The two should be weighted by their sample sizes, which the table gives
- The average should weight the larger number more, since the series it comes from is newer
- Nothing is wrong, since averaging two government sources gives the true value
- The series measure differently, so the average matches neither; report each one
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.
Kira compares the pace of change from 1890 to 1940 with the pace from 1940 to 1970. Which statement does the graph support?
- The same pace in both spans, since the rate rose between each pair of census years
- About 7.6 points a decade before 1940 and 15.6 a decade after, about twice as fast
- About 5.2 points a decade before 1940 and 1.5 a decade after, a slowing pace
- About 1.5 points a decade before 1940, about 5.2 after: more than three times as fast
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 5.
- Both numbers are percents of women, so they cannot be compared with one another
- The spans differ: twenty years against ten, so per decade it was 1.35 against 1.8
- 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
Use this
Graph "Persons obtaining lawful permanent resident status, by decade, 1881 to 1960" (Data: US Department of Homeland Security, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2019, Table 1; decade sums by the pack's author). Decade (first year of the ten) across, 1881 to 1951, a mark every 10. Persons obtaining lawful permanent resident status (millions) up, 0 to 10, a mark every 2. The bars are (1881, 5.2), (1891, 3.7), (1901, 8.8), (1911, 5.7), (1921, 4.1), (1931, 0.5), (1941, 1.0), (1951, 2.5). Key: each bar is one decade; its height is the number of people in millions. Note: A bar at 1881 stands for the ten years 1881 to 1890. Years are fiscal years ending June 30. Heights are rounded to 0.1 million. Four years in 1891 to 1900 (1892 to 1895) counted steerage passengers only and ran 7 to 8 percent lower than another count.
Luz calls the 1890s a low decade (3.7 million against 5.2 and 8.8), but four of its years ran 7 to 8 percent low. Does the claim hold?
- Yes, because the undercount touches the land-border years before 1908 and not the decade
- No: the undercount means the decade could have been the highest of the three decades
- No: a count with any undercount is unusable, so no claim about the decade can be made from it
- Yes: even if the whole decade ran 8 percent low it would be about 4.0 million, below 5.2
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.
Tala says the rate fell 4.4 points, from 19.0 in 1938 to 14.6 in 1940. What caution does the note add?
- Both are estimates made by subtraction, but the drop is still exactly 4.4 points
- 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
- 1938 is an estimate by subtraction and 1940 a survey result, so two methods are compared
Persons obtaining lawful permanent resident status, four decades
Decade Persons 1901 to 1910 8,795,386 1911 to 1920 5,735,811 1921 to 1930 4,107,209 1931 to 1940 528,431 Data: US Department of Homeland Security, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2019, Table 1; decade sums by the pack's author. Each decade is the sum of ten fiscal years ending June 30.
Esme's note says immigration fell 3 percent from 1901 to 1910 to 1911 to 1920. What should the note say?
- It fell by about 65 percent, found by dividing the later total by the earlier
- It fell by about 3.1 million, about 35 percent of the earlier total
- It fell by about 53 percent, found by dividing the fall by the later total
- It fell by about 35 percent, but of the 1911 to 1920 total and not the earlier one
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.
Noah's note says women's civilian labor force grew every year from 1940 to 1945. What should the note say?
- 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
- It grew each year from 1940 to 1945, though by smaller amounts after the year 1943
- It grew each year from 1940 to 1944, then dipped by about 140 thousand in 1945