Based on what you learned from reading the summaries of the articles I was wrong and so Are you and Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader: Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics, in mainstream media outlets, describe why Klein and Zeljka had to respond to the counterarguments posted to their original study. What made it necessary for Klein and Zeljka to conduct another study? Next, explain why Klein may have purposely chosen not to publish them summary of his second study in The Wall Street Journal. What difference in audience may have promoted him to publish that summary in The Atlantic? What are the benefits and drawbacks of “switching” audiences, both for Klein and for the publishers? Make sure you back up your stance with evidence from the assigned readings.
Question
Solution Preview
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.
The essential explanation for Klein’s and Buturovic’s response to the counterarguments posted to their original study is that, as serious researchers—and Klein’s ideological leanings notwithstanding—they recognized the possibility that the research was flawed. And charges of their results being confounded by confirmation bias would not have come as news to them, not in the least. After all, they were likely painfully aware of the limitations of basing a research paper on a survey that had already been conducted, i.e. the questions were already set in stone, and so could not be tailored to suit their purposes with more validity...
Return to homework library