<p>Entertainment in Cities: Definitely picture palaces. I remember reading about how department stores came into being in the late 1800s. For example, Macy’s was in New York in 1858. (wiki)</p>
<p>As for the colonial cities one: it’s definitely rivers.</p>
<p>“rivers isnt the right answer because water transport was how colonial cities transported goods, esp befor wagon roads.”</p>
<p>That isn’t true: they didn’t begin building widespread canals until after the colonial era. And if they were connected by rivers, why on earth would they even build canals? It was A.</p>
<p>Just a quick thing about the curve. I took a PR practice test in class awhile back and got 18 wrong (no omits), and it translated to a 760. Not sure how the CB curve compares to the PR one, though.</p>
<p>Did anyone notice that they asked A LOT of social question. I think the only “Act” that they even asked baout was the act of toleration which everyone knows.</p>
<p>And what do you have to say about the fact that only one city in colonial America had over 25000 inhabitants? (Philadelphia) (I also put rivers at the time)</p>
<p>it depends on how they worded the question. if it was “no city” then 25,000 is the choice.
but anyway, for rivers: amsco says- “most plantations were located on rivers so that cash crops could be shipped directly to europe.” “tranposrting goods by water was much easier…trading cneters like boston…located on good and navigable rivers.” so 25,000 is the only choice left.</p>
<p>but can anyone confirm panama canal is the answer for the hawaiicali company?</p>
<p>Ok, this question is confusing me. Wasn’t it worded something like “Most colonial cities had a poplulation less than 25,000”? And if so, this is a true statement, so it could not be the correct choice.</p>
<p>The panama canal ? wont be in any review book, its just something u have to think about. The quesiotn was whihc of the following would a northeastern merchant guy support if he has many customers in california or hawaii. Since the date that they listed was definitely b4 airplanes, the only way is to go by boat. To go aruond north america, the fastest way is to sail thorugh the panama canal to the west coast.</p>
<p>Btw, the panama canal question i thought was really stupid. It doesnt even require any knowledge of history. All u us had t know was where the canal is located u coudl get it right.</p>
<p>For the rivers one, didn’t it say that they were all located on inter-connecting rivers? I might just have made this up…but if it is right, then doesn’t that make it the right answer to the except question? My US geography is poor at best (UK), but I don’t think that’s really how rivers work, no?</p>
<p>IDK, that was a hard question. But all of the colonial cities were not connected by rivers, although, some were on rivers that flowed to the ocean.</p>
<p>ok…i think the point of having your city located on the river is bc that river flows to other cities, so it’s a transporattation. but i really have no idea. if someone finds some justificatin for 25,000 then that’s it…</p>
<p>I’m confused. Didn’t it say ‘all are true except’, and the options were three others and then ‘all were linked by connecting rivers’ and ‘most had populations under 25,000’?</p>
<p>I don’t think they were all connected by rivers, so surely that’s it?</p>
<p>I don’t know anymore though…maybe I’m not remembering correctly…:-)</p>