A research agency asks a random sample of respondents, ‘Would you vote for a female candidate for President if she were qualifie
d in every other way?” The design of this study is flawed. How? A. More information should have been provided about this potential female candidate for president, such as age, race, and religious affiliation.
B. Only carefully screened subjects should have been allowed to answer this survey question because not everyone is likely to vote in the next presidential election.
C. Research agencies should not ask survey questions about differences in age, race, gender, or religious affiliation as there is an increased risk in offending some sample respondents.
D. Wording the question in this manner implies that being female by itself makes you less qualified than a male…it says “if she were qualified in every other way.”
The correct answer is D. Wording the question in this manner implies that being female by itself makes you less qualified than a male…it says “if she were qualified in every other way.”
Explanation:
One of the factors that can make a study flaw is bias, this means the study includes questions or content influenced by personal judgements or that tries to influence the answers of the respondents. This occurs in the question "‘Would you vote for a female candidate for President if she were qualified in every other way?” because the phrase "if she were qualified in every other way" indirectly tells respondents women are less qualify or might not be qualified to be in the role of a president, which shows a personal judgment. Also, this wording might influence respondents to answer they would not vote for a woman.
No. Let's say we use 10 and 0.38. 1 X 10 is 10, so if anything is lower than 1, it will be lower than 10. Therefore, 0.38 X 10 is 3.8. This is less than the whole number, 10. Hope this is clear enough.
