AP U.S. History
Unit 3, Topics 3.2–3.9
Shared by Ashton · Oct 20, 2026 · 0 plays
One section per topic, from the Seven Years' War to the Constitution. Built around causation and the historians who argue about it.
80 questions across 8 sections. After every answer you’ll see why each choice is right or wrong, not just the one you picked.
Sample questions
Open a question to see the answer choices and the correct answer.
A 1750s customs official in Boston routinely accepts bribes to let smuggled Dutch tea pass through unreported, and his superiors in London rarely audit his ledgers or press him to enforce the law. Which concept does this scenario best illustrate?
- A. The Proclamation of 1763
- B. Salutary neglect ✓
- C. Virtual representation
- D. Writs of assistance
Correct answer: B. Loosely enforced trade and tax laws before 1763, with little real oversight from London, is the definition of salutary neglect.
A student writes: 'the French and Indian War broke out in 1754, two years before the related but separate Seven Years' War began in Europe in 1756.' What is the most accurate correction to offer?
- A. The dates are reversed – the Seven Years' War in Europe actually began first, in 1754, prompting the later French and Indian War in America.
- B. The French and Indian War refers only to fighting against Indian nations, while the Seven Years' War refers only to the Anglo-French European theater.
- C. The correction is unnecessary; the student's claim is accurate as written.
- D. These are the same war under two regional names; fighting began in North America in 1754, two years before Europe's 1756 declaration, but both names refer to one continuous conflict. ✓
Correct answer: D. Same war, two names tied to different theaters, with American fighting starting two years before Europe's formal declaration.
A colonial militia captain who served under Braddock later writes home boasting that colonial troops 'saved what regulars could not,' while a British general's after-action report describes the same colonial troops as having 'fled at the first volley.' Which historical interpretation does this pairing best support?
- A. Evidence that colonial troops were factually more skilled than British regulars in every engagement of the war.
- B. Evidence that the war caused no lasting change in how Britain viewed colonial military capability.
- C. Proof that British generals uniformly praised colonial soldiers throughout the war.
- D. Fred Anderson's argument that the war produced a mutual, and mismatched, self-image between Britain and colonists that fed later resentment. ✓
Correct answer: D. This is exactly the 'psychological rupture' Anderson describes: colonists saw themselves as capable partners while British officers saw them as an undisciplined 'rabble.'
After 1763, Britain's territory in North America roughly tripled in size while its army's peacetime presence there grew rather than shrank. Which explanation best accounts for that seemingly counterintuitive combination of victory and increased garrisoning?
- A. Colonial assemblies requested the increased garrison to protect against a renewed French invasion, which Britain granted.
- B. Victory eliminated French and Spanish threats entirely, so troops were stationed for purely ceremonial purposes.
- C. The vastly expanded territory, especially the new Ohio Valley frontier, still required defense against Indian nations like those in Pontiac's Rebellion, and administering it cost money Britain now had new reason to collect from colonists. ✓
- D. The doubled national debt made maintaining any army unaffordable, so troop levels actually fell sharply after 1763.
Correct answer: C. The expanded territory created new defense and administrative costs precisely when war debt made Britain unwilling to keep absorbing those costs itself.
Historian A argues the Proclamation of 1763 'proves Britain never had any intention of respecting colonial expansion,' while Historian B argues it 'shows Britain attempting a genuine, if ultimately unsuccessful, peace policy toward Native nations.' What is the strongest evidence-based response to this disagreement?
- A. Historian A is correct, and Historian B's reading has no support in the historical record.
- B. Historian B is correct, and Historian A's reading has no support in the historical record.
- C. Both readings have real support: the Proclamation followed directly from Pontiac's Rebellion and aimed to stabilize frontier relations, but colonists experienced it as a betrayal denying them land they felt they'd earned – so both British intent and colonial reception are historically defensible. ✓
- D. Neither reading is defensible, because the Proclamation had no practical effect on colonial behavior.
Correct answer: C. This dual reading (British stabilizing intent vs. colonial sense of betrayal) is exactly why historians treat the Proclamation as having two equally defensible interpretations.