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.
Winter distribution of the American crow, Corvus brachyrynchos.
Solution (Polynomial Long Division)
In 2013, Americans learned that the federal government massively surveys their phone calls and e-mai
Many Americans perceive bullfighting as a cruel activity that should be illegal everywhere. To most ...
The Graying of America: Americans Age 65 and Older
Patterns of North American Religion