GED - Social Studies Practice Test

Question 1 through 3 refers to the below excerpt.

Four Methods of Amending the U.S. Constitution

Method	Step 1	Step 2
1.	A two-thirds vote in both houses of the U.S. Congress	Ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures
2.	A two-thirds vote in both houses of U.S. Congress	Ratified by ratification conventions in three-fourths of the states
3.	A national constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures	Ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures
4.	A national convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures	Ratified by ratification conventions in three-fourths of the states

The 17th Amendment

In 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention decided to give state legislatures the power to select U.S. senators. The purpose was to ensure that the interests of the states were represented in the national legislature. However, some argued that the people should directly elect their senators. They thought the interests of the states would be preserved because the people were the source of all government power.

The first of nearly 300 congressional resolutions calling for direct election of senators came in 1826. Over the next 85 years, an amendment to directly elect U.S. senators was debated extensively. Finally, in 1913, the 17th Amendment, which allowed for the direct election of senators, was ratified.

This excerpt is from an article published in the Washington Times in 1908.

[The] Senator . . . said [t]he reasons for this reform are thoroughly well understood. . . . [I]t will prevent the corruption of the legislatures. . . . [I]t will prevent men buying a seat in the Senate . . . [and] make the Senate more responsive to the will of the people. . . . [I]t will . . . [also make] candidates . . . campaign before the people.

This excerpt is taken from the public domain.

Multiple Choice Item: 1 point value

Question Overview:This question requires you to analyze an article to determine the author's concern about the Constitution's original method for selecting senators. Because the concern is implied, rather than stated directly, you must do a close reading of the article, understand the available information and its context and then use reasoning skills to infer the author's message.

Answer Rationale:

Option A is correct. If you selected option A, you most likely noticed the direct statement in the article that the 17th Amendment "will prevent men buying a seat in the Senate." From this statement we can reason that, unlike the original method of electing senators, the amended version will limit the influence of the wealthy (those capable of "buying a seat").

Option B is incorrect. If you selected this option, you may have focused on the article's statement that the 17th Amendment "will also make candidates campaign before the people." However, even though debates are a frequent part of political campaigns, the article does not suggest that the Constitution's original method of selecting failed to help organize debates effectively. Instead, the statement "will also make candidates campaign before the people" makes it clear that the ratification of the 17th Amendment was about having senators elected by popular vote.

Option C is incorrect. If you selected option C, you may have focused on the article's mention of the Senate being responsive to "the will of the people" and concluded that the original method of selecting senators was not responsive to the wishes of all the people and failed to consider the welfare of the minority. However, a close reading of the excerpt provides no evidence that the original method of selecting senators lacked limits on the influence of the majority.

Option D is incorrect. If you selected this option, you may have focused on the article's statement that the 17th Amendment "will prevent the corruption of the legislature." While, in other discussions, the statement could lead us to believe that senators had been inefficient at lawmaking, the article does not present any evidence that the original method of selecting senators had created an inefficient lawmaking process.