Answer to Question 1
d
Answer to Question 2
An ideal response will:
1, Note that political scientists often see a world in which more than one factor contributes to an outcome. Thus, when trying to explain political outcomes, a political scientist is more likely to acknowledge a complex world with multiple contributing factors in a causal relationship. For example, a political scientist will not simply default to the simplest explanation, nor assume that a correlation between two events automatically means the existence of a causal relationship.
2, Discuss why politicians and journalists prefer simple explanations for political phenomena. For politicians and journalists, it is far easier, or politically beneficial, to simply explain events with a simple cause regardless of whether or not there is a causal relationship or other contributing factors. For politicians, explanations are often partisan in nature, ignoring information that does not comport with their political views.
3, Provide an example to illustrate these differences. For example, when trying to explain an election outcome, a political scientist might note a host of contributing factors that account for the election resultsthe state of the economy, incumbent advantages, public mood, or the quality of the campaigns. Pundits, journalists, and politicians may prefer simple explanations involving perhaps one of the above.
The Role of the Hippocampus and Cerebral Cortex in Long-Term Memory Storage
This Native American depiction of the Sand Creek Massacre, painted on a buffalo hide, shows the Indi
American Government: Roots and Reform, AP* Edition, 12th Edition
When a 2.75-kg fan, having blades 18.5 cm long, is turned off, its angular speed decreases ...
In the figure, a 10.0-m long bar is attached by a frictionless hinge to a wall and held ...
Greater Long-nosed Tree Shrew (Tupaia tana), Borneo and Sumatra.