how the nature of the modern Olympic games has changed—not always, but frequently enough to be
noteworthy. You should begin by analyzing the documents. A definition of just what the modern
Olympic games represented, or their overall goal, would be to promote peace and understanding
among nations (Documents 2 and 5). This is based on the Classical era’s idea that the games should be
all-inclusive (Document 1).
You should incorporate further analysis of the documents, perhaps by dividing them into those that
contain evidence in support of the idea of using the games as a political soapbox (Documents 3, 4,
and 5) and those that present an opposing point of view (Documents 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7). There will be an
obvious overlapping of documents, since many of them present both perspectives. Simply listing the
characteristics of individual documents, however, does not answer the question or sustain your thesis.
Having considered the differing points of view, your task is to connect them, within a historical
context, in order to show that the Olympics were never intended to be political, and that today, in an
effort to remove politics from the Olympic arena, the establishment of a permanent venue has been
suggested (Document 7).
There are various conclusions that can be drawn here. You may feel that globalization has made
the political nature of any international event inevitable. On the other hand, you may conclude that
athletes should take the moral high road and simply carry out and show off their athletic talents
(Document 6). In other words, you may show that while political gamesmanship contradicts the
original intent of the Olympic games, it is an unavoidable by-product of a world in which not only
are nations inextricably intertwined (economically, politically, culturally), but so are the things—
sports, religion, entertainment, business—that make up any given culture.
Section II, Part B: Long-Essay Question
In a strong response, you may begin by explaining what “longevity” means in the context of the
question. The Chinese imperial system lasted from approximately 1500 BCE to 1912 CE, or almost
3,500 years. Egypt’s dynastic system lasted from approximately 3100 BCE until 30 BCE, or until the
death of Cleopatra. (For purposes of comparison, the Western Roman Empire lasted about 500 years,
and the Spanish Empire lasted about 300 years.)
In this essay, you can make the case either for or against the causal effects of physical environment
on the longevity of either the Chinese or the Egyptian imperial system. Both China and Egypt
controlled large land masses. In a sense, they had only one frontier to defend from invaders. The
Chinese fortified their frontier with the Great Wall. Egypt enjoyed natural barriers: water on two
sides, and desert on two sides. In both cases, their geography contributed to the longevity of the
empire as well as to a sense of national identity. Geographic barriers kept invaders out and, to a
degree, kept inhabitants in.
China’s climate is varied simply because the country covers a great deal of territory. Arable land,
however, has always been relatively restricted. This geographic feature made China more inclined to
cultivate trade, and thus the Silk Roads developed. Egypt has a temperate climate and a dependable
river, the Nile. “Dependable” means that the Nile has followed a predictable cycle of flooding,
depositing fertile soil (silt) along its banks for use in planting and harvesting. This environmental
feature enabled the Egyptians to raise three crops a year.
Culturally, both China and Egypt believed that their leaders were semidivine and that continued
environmental benevolence depended on maintaining harmony between the rulers of the cosmos and
the terrestrial rulers. Thus, natural or environmental disasters—floods or droughts, for example—
could prompt changes in rulers or even whole dynasties, although the systems remained intact.