1
Reading Passage
Liberty Loans were government bonds sold in the United States during World War I to help finance military expenses. These loans allowed ordinary citizens to lend money to the government, with a promise of repayment plus interest in the future. The Liberty Loan campaigns used posters, speeches, and celebrities to encourage people to buy bonds as a patriotic duty. The government raised billions of dollars this way, and the success of the program showed how public support could contribute to national efforts in times of crisis.
Listening Passage (Conversation or Lecture Summary):
(Narrator):
Now listen to part of a lecture in a U.S. history class.
Professor:
During World War I, Liberty Loans played a critical role in funding the war. The government couldn’t rely just on taxes, so they needed public investment. What’s interesting is how they got people involved. The government ran huge advertising campaigns — they used posters with slogans like “Buy a bond, beat the Hun,” referring to Germany. Even famous actors and musicians encouraged people to buy bonds. There were also parades and public speeches. People felt buying a bond was like fighting for their country. And, in fact, many people, including children, bought them to show support. It wasn’t just about money — it was about unity and patriotism.
Question:
The professor discusses Liberty Loans and explains how they were used during World War I. Explain how the information in the lecture adds to or explains the concept presented in the reading passage.
2
Reading Passage
During the American Civil War, the U.S. government issued Greenbacks, a type of paper money not backed by gold or silver, to fund war expenses. Unlike traditional currency, Greenbacks were supported only by the government’s promise to accept them for payment. Some people supported Greenbacks because they provided the government with immediate funds and increased the money supply, helping stimulate the economy. However, others opposed Greenbacks, arguing that without gold backing, they could lose value and lead to inflation. The debate over Greenbacks continued even after the war, as people questioned whether they should remain in circulation.
Listening Passage (Professor’s Lecture):
Professor:
So, as the reading says, Greenbacks were really controversial. Let’s look at both sides more closely. First, the opponents — they were mostly creditors and bankers who didn’t like Greenbacks because the value of the money could change a lot. If you lent someone money and got paid back in Greenbacks that had lost value, you’d lose money. Also, people worried about inflation — if too much paper money was printed, prices would go up.
But there were also strong proponents. Many farmers and working-class people liked Greenbacks because they increased the money supply. With more money in circulation, it was easier to pay off debts. Also, during the war, Greenbacks allowed the government to pay soldiers and buy supplies when gold reserves were low. So while some people feared inflation, others saw Greenbacks as a necessary and helpful solution, especially in hard times.
Question:
The professor explains both sides of the debate about Greenbacks. Explain how the information in the lecture adds to or explains the concept in the reading passage.
3
Reading Passage
The 2008 Financial Crisis was one of the most severe economic downturns in recent history, leading to a global recession. A key cause of the crisis was the collapse of the housing market in the United States. For years, banks had given out subprime mortgages — loans to people with poor credit histories — and these risky loans were bundled into financial products called mortgage-backed securities. When homeowners could no longer pay their loans, these securities lost value, causing massive losses for banks and investors. As a result, many major financial institutions either failed or required government bailouts to survive. The crisis also led to widespread job losses, home foreclosures, and a deep decline in consumer confidence.
Listening Passage (Professor’s Lecture):
Professor:
So, as the reading explains, the 2008 crisis was triggered by the housing market crash. But let me add a bit more detail about why it happened and what people think about it.
First, about the cause — yes, banks gave out too many risky mortgages, but they were encouraged to do this because of financial deregulation. In the years before the crisis, the government relaxed rules on banks, so banks started to take bigger risks. They offered loans to people who couldn’t really afford them because they believed housing prices would keep rising. Banks also sold these risky mortgages to investors all over the world, so when the housing bubble burst, everyone was affected, not just Americans.
Now, if we look at perspectives on how to fix the crisis, there were two sides. Some people believed the government should step in and regulate banks more strictly to prevent this from happening again — for example, by passing laws to limit risky lending. Others argued that government intervention was part of the problem, saying that bailing out banks with taxpayers’ money encouraged bad behavior, a concept known as moral hazard. They thought banks should have been allowed to fail to teach the market a lesson.
In the end, though, the U.S. government did bail out several big banks, and new regulations, like the Dodd-Frank Act, were passed to control risky behavior in the future. But even today, people still debate whether those solutions were right.
The reading passage explains the causes and effects of the 2008 Financial Crisis. The professor adds further information and opinions about the crisis. Explain how the professor’s lecture adds to or challenges the information in the reading.
4
Inflation in 2022: Opponents and Proponents of Government Response
Reading Passage (about 45 seconds to read):
In 2022, the United States experienced the highest inflation rates in over 40 years, with prices of goods, services, and energy rising sharply. To address this issue, the Federal Reserve, America’s central bank, raised interest rates several times to slow down inflation. Some experts supported this strategy, arguing that higher rates would reduce consumer spending and bring prices under control. However, others opposed the aggressive rate hikes, saying that they could lead to a recession and cause many people to lose jobs. This debate over how to handle inflation continues among economists and policymakers.
Listening Passage (Lecture Excerpt):
Professor:
As the reading explains, inflation was a huge problem in 2022, and the government’s response caused a lot of debate. Let me explain both sides more clearly.
On one hand, supporters of raising interest rates argue that inflation was mainly caused by too much demand. People had extra money from government aid during the pandemic and were spending a lot. So, supporters say higher interest rates were necessary to make borrowing more expensive and slow down spending, which would help reduce prices.
On the other hand, opponents think that inflation was really caused by supply issues, like supply chain disruptions and the war in Ukraine raising energy costs. They argue that raising interest rates doesn’t fix those problems — and instead, it can make the economy worse. If businesses stop hiring and people lose jobs, inflation might fall, but at a huge cost to society. So, opponents believe rate hikes might do more harm than good.
Question:
The professor explains two different views on how to respond to inflation in 2022. Explain how these opinions add to or challenge the ideas in the reading.