Question

for last 2 part

8. Balance of questions makes logical sense but does not always have a strong impact on the results. Its im- pact is increased by the strength of a counter argument. A study reported by Schuman and Presser1 compared the following two forms; Q1: If there is a serious fuel shortage this winter, do you think there should be a law requiring people to lower the heat in their homes? Q2: If there is a serious fuel shortage this winter, do you think there should be a law requiring people to lower the heat in their homes, or do you oppose of such a law? Another study in a later year compared these forms Q1: If there is a serious fuel shortage this winter, do you think there should be a law requiring people to lower the heat in their homes, or do you oppose such a law? (same as Q2 above). Q2: If there is a serious fuel shortage this winter, do you think there should be a law requiring people to lower the heat in their homes, or do you oppose such a law because it would be too difficult to enforce? Within each pair of questions, which one do you think received the lower percentage of responses favouring the law? Explain your reasoning

Answer 1

Solution:

With the main arrangement of inquiry it appears that the second inquiry would get bring down rates of reactions supporting the law in light of the fact that the primary inquiry gives an increasingly open finished reaction.

with the second arrangement of inquiries it appears that the primary inquiry would get bring down rates of reactions supporting the law on the grounds that the second inquiry gives motivation to restrict the law and the first is only a straight yes or no.