Human migration

Pull factors attract people to a new place; push factors drive them away from home.

Evidence: paragraph 2 says a plant in the new city "was hiring workers and paid about four times what Ana could earn at home." Jobs and higher pay in the destination are classic pull factors.

Sorting the choices:

• Crop failures from too little rain → a problem at home → push.
• The village school closing → a problem at home → push.
• Gangs demanding money → a problem at home → push.
• A plant hiring at higher pay in the new city → an attraction elsewhere → pull.

The correct answer is C.

Tip: ask "Where is this happening?" If the detail describes the home place, it is usually a push factor. If it describes the destination, it is usually a pull factor.

The dashed red line marks 50%, half of the population. Look for the first data point above that line.

Reading the graph:

• 1900: 39.6%, below the 50% line.
• 1920: 51.2%, above the 50% line.
• Every later year is higher still.

So 1920 is the first census year shown in which more than half of Americans lived in urban areas. The country had changed from mostly rural to mostly urban.

The correct answer is C.

Why not the others? 1880 (28.2%) and 1900 (39.6%) are below half. 1950 (64.0%) is above half, but it is not the first year to pass 50%.

Tip: words like first, earliest, and last matter on line graphs. Find where the line crosses the reference value, then pick the first point on the correct side.

The answer depends on point of view.

Key terms:

• An emigrant leaves (exits) his or her home country.
• An immigrant enters a new country to live there.
• An internal migrant moves within the same country.

Evidence: paragraph 2 says Ana's cousin had moved "to a city in another country," and paragraph 3 says Ana "moved to that city," where her children "started school." So Ana left her home country to live in another country.

Reasoning: from her home country's point of view, she left, so she is an emigrant. (From the new country's point of view, she is an immigrant, but the question asks about her birth country.)

The correct answer is B.

Why not the others? A uses the new country's point of view. C is wrong because she crossed into another country. D is wrong because she settled permanently, enrolling her children in school, rather than coming and going with the seasons.

Tip: the same person is both an emigrant and an immigrant. Always check whose point of view the question uses.

Evidence: paragraph 3: "Handbills and word of mouth promised plenty of work picking fruit, cotton, and vegetables in California's farm valleys."

Step by step:

1. A pull factor draws people toward a place. A push factor drives them away from home.
2. Drought and dust storms (paragraph 1) and evictions (paragraph 2) are problems in the Plains, so they are push factors.
3. Low wages in crowded camps (paragraph 4) happened after migrants arrived; they did not attract anyone.
4. The promise of farm work in California is an attraction at the destination, so it is a pull factor.

The correct answer is promises of farm work picking crops in California.

Tip: ask "Is this about the place they left or the place they went?" and "Did it happen before or after the move?"

Evidence: paragraph 3 says people "from the Plains and nearby states headed west, many to California along Route 66."

Step by step:

1. Oklahoma and California are both states of the United States.
2. Moving from one place to another within the same country is internal migration.
3. The family did not leave the United States, so it was not emigrating, and it did not enter a new country, so it was not immigrating.
4. It was not a refugee move across a border: the family did not cross into another country.

The correct answer is internal migrants.

Check: the Great Migration of African Americans from the South to northern cities is another example of internal migration in U.S. history.

Tip: before labeling a migration, ask one question first: did the people cross an international border? If not, it is internal.

Evidence (graph): the line falls after 1910 to its lowest point, 4.7% in 1970, and then rises again (6.2% in 1980, 7.9% in 1990).

Step by step:

1. Scan the whole line for the lowest point, not just the left or right end.
2. The lowest point is labeled 4.7.
3. It lines up with 1970 on the horizontal axis.

The correct answer is 1970.

Why not the others? 1850 (9.7%) is the lowest of the early years but much higher than 1970. 1960 (5.4%) is close but higher. 2010 (12.9%) is near the top.

Check: historians link the low point to the strict quota laws of the 1920s, the Great Depression, and World War II, which cut immigration for decades.

Tip: on a line graph, the minimum may be in the middle. Check every labeled point.

Evidence (flow map), in thousands: Highlands → Marent 90; Delta → Marent 60; Other countries → Marent 40; Highlands → Sela 35; Other countries → Sela 30; Delta → Sela 25; Marent → Sela 20; Marent → Other countries 15; Sela → Other countries 10.

Step by step:

1. List every arrow with its number.
2. The largest number is 90, on the arrow from the Highlands to Marent (the capital). It is also the thickest arrow.

The correct answer is from the Highlands to Marent.

Why not the others? Delta → Marent (60) is the second largest. The arrow between Marent and other countries goes both ways, but each direction is small (40 in, 15 out). Highlands → Sela is only 35.

Tip: a single movement means one arrow. Do not add arrows together unless the question asks for a total.

A change in percentage points is the simple difference between two percents.

Step by step:

1. Read the graph: 1850 = 15.4%; 1900 = 39.6%.
2. Subtract: 39.6 - 15.4 = 24.2.
3. The urban share rose by 24.2 percentage points.

During these years, the Industrial Revolution drew millions of people, including many immigrants, to factory jobs in growing cities.

The correct answer is A.

Why not the others? B adds the two values instead of subtracting (15.4 + 39.6 = 55). C reports only the 1850 value. D uses the wrong years: 51.2 - 39.6 = 11.6 is the change from 1900 to 1920.

Tip: "percentage points" means subtract the two percents. "Percent change" means divide the change by the starting value. Here the percent change would be \dfrac{24.2}{15.4} \times 100 \approx 157\%, a different number for a different question.

A birth rate shows how many babies are born. In a population pyramid, recent births show up in the youngest age group, the bottom bar.

Reading the pyramids:

• Country A, ages 0–9: 5.0 million males + 4.8 million females = 9.8 million. Its bottom bar is the widest in the pyramid.
• Country B, ages 0–9: 2.0 million males + 1.9 million females = 3.9 million. Its bottom bar is one of the narrowest.

Country A's broad base, which narrows steadily toward the top, is an expansive pyramid. It is typical of countries with high birth rates and a young population.

The correct answer is A.

Why not the others? B misreads the pyramid; Country B's widest bars are in the middle (ages 40–49), which reflects births decades ago, not now. C is wrong because the base widths differ greatly. D: the pyramids do show children, in the 0–9 group.

Tip: shape tells the story. A wide base points to a high birth rate and growth. A narrow base points to a low birth rate and an aging population.

Reading Country B's pyramid: the largest groups are ages 30–59, especially 40–49. The youngest groups (0–19) are much smaller. Older groups (60+) are already sizable.

Projecting forward 20–30 years:

1. The big 40–59 groups will reach retirement age (60–80+).
2. The small 0–19 groups will become the main working-age adults.
3. Fewer workers will be supporting more retirees, which means a shrinking workforce and higher costs for pensions and health care.

Countries with this shape (Japan, Italy, and Germany are real examples) often look to immigration to fill jobs, which is itself a pull factor for migrants.

The correct answer is D.

Why not the others? A and C describe Country A, whose wide base means many children. B misreads the pyramid: Country B's young groups are its smallest, not largest.

Tip: to predict from a pyramid, "slide" each bar upward in time. Large middle-aged groups today become large elderly groups tomorrow.

Paragraph 3 gives the cause: "When World War I began in 1914, immigration from Europe dropped sharply, and northern factories needed workers."

Reasoning: before the war, many factory workers in northern cities were European immigrants. When the war cut off that flow, factories faced a labor shortage. That shortage created jobs, a pull factor that drew Black Southerners north.

The correct answer is B.

Why not the others?

• A reverses cause and effect. The Chicago Defender printed job ads because jobs were available; the newspaper did not create the shortage.
• C: the boll weevil (paragraph 2) destroyed cotton in the South. It was a push factor, not a reason northern factories needed workers.
• D: the passage says nothing about northern workers moving south; the migration went the other way.

Tip: GED cause-and-effect questions often chain several steps: war → less European immigration → factory labor shortage → jobs for Black migrants → the Great Migration. Make sure the cause you pick is the one the question asks about.

Evidence (pyramids): ages 0–9 in 1990: 3.6 + 3.5 = 7.1 million. Ages 0–9 in 2020: 2.2 + 2.1 = 4.3 million.

Step by step:

1. Recent births appear in the youngest group at the bottom.
2. In 1990 the base was the widest part of the pyramid (an expansive pyramid).
3. In 2020 the base is narrower than the bars above it, even though the total population is larger.
4. Fewer young children means fewer births, so the birth rate most likely fell.

The correct answer is It fell, because the youngest age group shrank while older groups grew.

Why not the others? The wide 30–39 bars in 2020 show people born decades earlier, not current births. The shapes are clearly different, so the birth rate did not stay the same.

Tip: a narrowing base is the pyramid's signal for a falling birth rate.

Evidence: paragraph 2: "Some landowners bought tractors that could farm large areas with only a few workers, and they evicted the tenant farmers who had rented their land."

Step by step:

1. A tenant farmer rents land instead of owning it.
2. The cause in the text: tractors let landowners farm with fewer workers, so they no longer needed tenants.
3. The effect: landowners evicted (forced out) the tenants.

The correct answer is Landowners using tractors needed fewer workers and evicted them.

Why not the others? Banks took over farms from owners who could not repay loans, a different group. Dust storms were a problem for everyone but are not the reason given for these evictions. The federal camps (paragraph 4) came later, in California.

Tip: when a question names a specific group, find the sentence about that group before choosing.

Evidence (graph): 1970: 4.7%. 2010: 12.9%.

Step by step:

1. "How many times as large" asks for a ratio, so divide: 12.9 \div 4.7 \approx 2.74.
2. 2.7 is a little less than 3.

The correct answer is nearly 3 times.

Check: 3 \times 4.7 = 14.1, just above 12.9, so "nearly 3 times" fits.

Why not the others? 8 comes from subtracting (12.9 − 4.7 = 8.2), which is a difference, not a ratio. 1.5 times would be about 7%. "About the same" ignores the large rise on the graph.

Tip: difference → subtract; how many times → divide.

Evidence:

• Source 1: quotas were based on each nationality's numbers in the 1890 census, so they were large for northern and western Europe and small for southern and eastern Europe.
• Source 2: "Under that system the ability of new immigrants to come to America depended upon the country of their birth." Johnson says it "violated the basic principle of American democracy" and was "un-American in the highest sense."

Step by step:

1. Source 1 describes the national origins quota system.
2. Source 2 criticizes that system for judging people by birthplace instead of "merit."
3. Johnson's new law admits people "on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here."

The correct answer is Source 2 condemns the system in Source 1 for judging immigrants by their country of birth.

Tip: in paired-source questions, first label each source's position in a few words ("describes quotas" / "attacks quotas"), then compare the labels.

Evidence:

• Pyramid: ages 20–29: 62 thousand males vs. 24 thousand females; ages 30–39: 58 thousand males vs. 22 thousand females. Ages 40–49 also lean male (30 vs. 16 thousand), but in the other age groups males and females are about equal (for example 0–9: 18 and 17).
• Passage: the port and shipyards "have hired thousands of dock workers, crane operators, and welders."

Step by step:

1. A normal population has roughly equal numbers of males and females at each age.
2. Port Halden has a huge extra group of working-age men only.
3. Babies are not born as 20-year-olds, so this bulge must come from people moving in: men attracted by port jobs (a pull factor).

The correct answer is Many young men moved to the city to work at the port and shipyards.

Why not the others? A high birth rate would widen the 0–9 bars for both sexes. An aging population would widen the top. A baby boom 20–39 years earlier would have produced both boys and girls.

Tip: a bulge in one sex at working ages is the classic pyramid signal of labor migration.

Evidence:

• Source 2: Johnson predicted the bill "does not affect the lives of millions."
• Graph: the foreign-born share was 4.7% in 1970 and rose every census after that, to 12.9% in 2010.

Step by step:

1. The law was signed in 1965, so evidence about its effect must come from after 1965.
2. From 1970 to 2010 the share nearly tripled (4.7% → 12.9%). Because the U.S. population was in the hundreds of millions, that rise means many millions more foreign-born residents.
3. So the graph suggests immigration grew far more than Johnson predicted.

The correct answer is The share rose from 4.7% in 1970 to 12.9% in 2010.

Why not the others? The other choices describe years before 1965, so they cannot show the law's effect.

Tip: to test a claim about a law or event, use data from after it took effect, and compare with the period just before.

Evidence (2020 pyramid): the largest groups are ages 30–39 (6.7 million) and 20–29 and 40–49. The youngest group (0–9) is smaller (4.3 million) than every group from 10 to 59.

Step by step:

1. In 30 years, people aged 30–39 in 2020 will be 60–69, and those aged 20–49 will be 50–79.
2. The groups that will be working-age adults in 2050 are today's children and teens, whose bars are smaller.
3. So Talmora will have a growing number of older people compared with working-age adults, raising costs for pensions and health care.

The correct answer is a larger share of older people relative to working-age adults.

Why not the others? Shortages of schools happen when the base is widening, but Talmora's base is shrinking. A boom in teenagers would need a wide 0–9 bar now. Rapid growth from a high birth rate describes the 1990 shape, not 2020.

Tip: to predict, slide every bar up by the number of years asked and see who ends up at retirement age and who is left to work.

Evidence (table), per 1,000:

Step by step:

1. "Only because of immigration" means that without migration the population would shrink: natural increase is negative.
2. Only Brevik has more deaths than births (−2), yet its population still grows (+3) because more people move in than out.

The correct answer is Brevik.

Why not Dunmar? Most of Dunmar's growth comes from migration, but its natural increase (+1) is still positive, so it would grow slightly even without immigration.

Tip: words like only demand a strict test. Ask: what would happen if migration were zero?

Evidence (pyramids): 1990, ages 0–9: 3.6 + 3.5 = 7.1 million. 2020, ages 30–39: 3.4 + 3.3 = 6.7 million.

Step by step:

1. Thirty years later, a child aged 0–9 in 1990 is aged 30–39 in 2020. These two bars show the same generation.
2. The generation born when Talmora's birth rate was high is now the widest part of the 2020 pyramid. That is why the 2020 shape bulges in the middle.
3. The group is slightly smaller (7.1 → 6.7 million), which fits some deaths and some people moving away over 30 years.

The correct answer is The wide 30–39 group in 2020 is largely the same generation that formed the wide base in 1990.

Why not the others? The 2020 30–39 group is not new births. It shrank slightly, so there is no sign of a huge wave of immigrants. And the two bars are not equal in size.

Tip: a pyramid is a snapshot. Moving forward in time, each generation climbs one row every ten years.

Evidence: the passage says the port hired "thousands of dock workers, crane operators, and welders," and the pyramid shows the extra workers as the very wide male bars at ages 20–29 (62 thousand) and 30–39 (58 thousand).

Step by step:

1. The bulge exists because of jobs (a pull factor).
2. If the jobs disappear, that pull factor is gone, and the workers move away (out-migration).
3. So the male bars for working ages would shrink, bringing them closer to the female bars.

The correct answer is The male bars for working-age adults would shrink.

Why not the others? Automation does not directly change the number of babies or older residents. The female bars were never wide, so they would not be the main change.

Tip: in a what-if question, change only what the scenario changes. Find the group tied to that cause.

Step by step:

1. The first man moved, then sent letters and money home.
2. His brothers, cousins, and neighbors followed him to the same city.
3. When migrants follow relatives or neighbors who moved before them, using their help and information, it is called chain migration.

The correct answer is chain migration.

Why not the others?

• Internal migration is movement within one country; Sicily (Italy) to New York crosses an international border.
• Forced migration means people are made to move; these migrants chose to come.
• A push factor is a reason to leave home. It is not a type of movement, and the passage describes what pulled them, not what pushed them.

Check: chain migration explains why many U.S. neighborhoods once had immigrants from the very same foreign villages.

Tip: read the exact focus of the stem. Several terms may be true of a story, but only one names the pattern being asked about.

Analyze each source's type, attitude, and scope.

Source 1 (poem, 1883): the Statue of Liberty says, "Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Its attitude is welcoming, and it welcomes everyone, especially the poor.

Source 2 (federal law, 1882): Congress declared that "the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities" and ordered that "the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be … suspended" for ten years. Its attitude is restrictive, aimed at one specific group.

Putting them together: written only a year apart, the sources show conflicting American attitudes toward immigration: an ideal of welcome, alongside laws excluding a particular group.

The correct answer is C.

Why not the others?

• A: Source 2 does not welcome anyone, and the poem does not mention skills.
• B reverses the source types: Source 2 is the law (passed by Congress), and Source 1 is a poem expressing a personal vision.
• D overstates Source 2: it suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers, not all immigration.

Tip: when comparing sources, write a three-word label for each (poem, welcoming, everyone / law, restrictive, Chinese laborers). Then reject choices that swap the sources, overstate their scope, or claim agreement where there is none.

Test each group on both conditions:

The correct answer is Group 3.

Why this is hard: Groups 1 and 4 crossed a border, and Group 2 fled violence, so each matches one condition. Only Group 3 matches both. People fleeing natural disasters can face real danger, but under the description given they are not refugees unless they are also fleeing war, violence, or persecution.

Tip: definitions on the GED often have two or more required parts joined by and. Make a mini-table and check every part.

Evidence (table), per 1,000:

• Aldera: natural increase 32 − 8 = 24; net migration −4; growth 20 (2.0%).
• Dunmar: natural increase 11 − 10 = 1; net migration +7; growth 8 (0.8%).

Step by step:

1. Aldera grows despite losing people to emigration, because births far outnumber deaths. Its growth comes from natural increase.
2. Dunmar has almost as many deaths as births; 7 of its 8 points of growth come from net migration.
3. Aldera's growth rate (2.0%) is higher than Dunmar's (0.8%).

The correct answer is Aldera's growth comes mainly from natural increase, while Dunmar's comes mainly from migration.

Why not the others? Aldera's net migration is negative, so it is not gaining migrants. Dunmar grows more slowly, not faster. Dunmar's birth rate (11) is lower than Aldera's (32).

Check: Aldera's pattern (high birth rate, more people leaving than arriving) is typical of a young, fast-growing country; Dunmar's (low birth rate, many newcomers) is typical of an older one.

Tip: growth has two sources. On every rate table, compute both before comparing countries.