Though unemployment during the Great Depression was widespread, it was higher in some parts of the United States than in others.
How might a micro historian and a comparative historian use different method to study this topic microhistorian and a comparative historian use different methods to study this topic? a. A microhistorian might graph unemployment levels in several cities throughout the Great Depression, while a comparative historian might document one day in a town that experienced particularly high unemployment levels. b. A microhistorian might interview only members of a specific subgroup of unemployed people, while a comparative historian might count all the unemployed people in a single city during one year of the Great Depression. c. A microhistorian might document one day in a town that experienced particularly high unemployment levels, while a comparative historian might graph unemployment levels in several cities throughout the Great Depression. d. A microhistorian might count all the unemployed people in a single city during one year of the Great Depression, while a comparative historian might interview only members of a specific subgroup of unemployed people.
I believe the answer is: A microhistorian might document one day in a town that experienced particularly high unemployment levels, while a comparative historian might graph unemployment levels in several cities throughout the Great Depression.
Microhistorian tend to choose that method because they tend to favour a more intensive research within smaller unit of research (such as villages, small neighbourhood, etc). Comparative historian on the other hand, might choose that method because they favour research technique that collect as many data as possible from one segment of historical period and compared it with the another.
"<span>c. A microhistorian might document one day in a town that experienced particularly high unemployment levels, while a comparative historian might graph unemployment levels in several cities throughout the Great Depression" is the best option, since the microhistorian's focus is very narrow. </span>
There was party stability, and the dominance of both Democrat and Republican parties was strong, which led to a big impact in the lives of millions of voters.
The appearance of political machines, which were party organizations that incentivized people to join their party and increased their voter´s loyalty.
Political machines became a central element of life for civilians.
Political parties not only served the political needs of society, but also their needs for social services.
