CPO ULTIMATE EXAM | 2024 NEWEST UPDATE |
OVER 100+ QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT VRIFIED
ANSWERS | GRADED A+
Imagine that an analyst is interested in understanding why civil wars occur. If the analyst chooses to
study only cases in which civil wars have occurred (for example, in the Congo, Yugoslavia, Greece, Spain,
Sri Lanka, and the United States), then he/she is using:
Mill's method of Agreement
Imagine that an analyst is interested in understanding why civil wars occur. If the analyst chooses to
study some cases in which civil war occurred (Yugoslavia, Greece, and Spain) and some cases in which
they did not (Italy, Switzerland, Belgium), then he/she is using:
Mill's method of Difference
According to the discussion in Chapter 2, it is only possible for scientists to draw valid inferences from
Mill's Methods of Agreement and Difference if:
a) The causal process is deterministic.
,b) All the potential causes have been identified; there is a single cause of the outcome; and there are no
interaction effects among the causes.
c) They believe that all instances of the phenomena that they are trying to explain that occur in the
future will look exactly like all the instances of the phenomena that they have already observed.
"A country cannot maintain democracy unless it has a tolerant culture." In this statement, 'tolerant
culture' is an example of a:
necessary condition
"If a democracy is wealthy, then it will stay a democracy." In this statement, 'being wealthy" is an
example of a:
sufficient condition
A valid argument is
One where you have to accept the conclusion if you accept the premise
You can reject a deterministic theory after one counter-example
true
Science is a collection of facts - it tells us what we know about the world.
, false
Major Premise: If a county has a participant culture, then democracy in that country will be stable.
Minor Premise: Democracy in country X is stable.
Conclusion: Therefore, country X has a participant culture. What form does this argument take?
affirming the consequent
Major Premise: If a county has a participant culture, then democracy in that country will be stable.
Minor Premise: Democracy in country X is stable.
Conclusion: Therefore, country X has a participant culture. is this a valid argument?
no
Major Premise: If Islam is incompatible with democracy, then Islamic countries are more likely to be
dictatorships than democracies.
Minor Premise: Most Islamic countries today are dictatorships.
Conclusion: Therefore, Islam is incompatible with democracy. What form does this argument take?
affirming the consequent
OVER 100+ QUESTIONS WITH CORRECT VRIFIED
ANSWERS | GRADED A+
Imagine that an analyst is interested in understanding why civil wars occur. If the analyst chooses to
study only cases in which civil wars have occurred (for example, in the Congo, Yugoslavia, Greece, Spain,
Sri Lanka, and the United States), then he/she is using:
Mill's method of Agreement
Imagine that an analyst is interested in understanding why civil wars occur. If the analyst chooses to
study some cases in which civil war occurred (Yugoslavia, Greece, and Spain) and some cases in which
they did not (Italy, Switzerland, Belgium), then he/she is using:
Mill's method of Difference
According to the discussion in Chapter 2, it is only possible for scientists to draw valid inferences from
Mill's Methods of Agreement and Difference if:
a) The causal process is deterministic.
,b) All the potential causes have been identified; there is a single cause of the outcome; and there are no
interaction effects among the causes.
c) They believe that all instances of the phenomena that they are trying to explain that occur in the
future will look exactly like all the instances of the phenomena that they have already observed.
"A country cannot maintain democracy unless it has a tolerant culture." In this statement, 'tolerant
culture' is an example of a:
necessary condition
"If a democracy is wealthy, then it will stay a democracy." In this statement, 'being wealthy" is an
example of a:
sufficient condition
A valid argument is
One where you have to accept the conclusion if you accept the premise
You can reject a deterministic theory after one counter-example
true
Science is a collection of facts - it tells us what we know about the world.
, false
Major Premise: If a county has a participant culture, then democracy in that country will be stable.
Minor Premise: Democracy in country X is stable.
Conclusion: Therefore, country X has a participant culture. What form does this argument take?
affirming the consequent
Major Premise: If a county has a participant culture, then democracy in that country will be stable.
Minor Premise: Democracy in country X is stable.
Conclusion: Therefore, country X has a participant culture. is this a valid argument?
no
Major Premise: If Islam is incompatible with democracy, then Islamic countries are more likely to be
dictatorships than democracies.
Minor Premise: Most Islamic countries today are dictatorships.
Conclusion: Therefore, Islam is incompatible with democracy. What form does this argument take?
affirming the consequent
