Answer:
<h3>The comparison and contrast of Davis and Moore’s functionalist perspective of social stratification with Mosca’s conflict perspective of social stratification lies on the concept of social position and power.</h3>
Explanation:
Davis and Moore's functionalist perspective of social stratification and Mosca’s conflict perspective of social stratification all emphasize on the presence of a power structure in a society which directly corresponds to the position of an individual. They all believed that society operates according to the social needs and that every individual performs their tasks accordingly.
The line of distinction between Davis and Moore's functionalist perspective and Mosca’s conflict perspective lies in the nature of men. Mosca believes that man is evil and dominating by nature and that compels him/her to misuse his position. He brings out the authority and power of the ruling class as an example to this argument. He argues that people in good position will eventually become more powerful as men are ambitious and selfish. They will gradually exploit people from lower position and use their power for their own personal gains.
While on the other hand, Davis and Moore argue that the greater the role of an individual is, the greater should be the reward. They illustrate the idea that people with bigger and greater roles should be given more importance because of their greater contributions to the society. Their perspective of social stratification emphasize that not everyone can perform the exclusive task of the doctors, therefore those who could perform such complicated tasks should be paid and rewarded more. Davis and Moore do not consider misuse of position and power by people of great influence.
In my opinion, Davis and Moore’s functionalist perspective of social stratification is more applicable and realistic. The fact that those who worked hard deserves a reward is a universal doctrine. These people spent a lot of effort and time before acquiring the position they are in today. Their effort and hard work should be rewarded greatly as they will contribute significantly to the society. Though, this perspective does not bring into account the chances of misuse of power and position, such elements can be controlled through efficient law and state control.
Answer:
Option A ,
Explanation:
The argument is weak. Arguments are always established with multiple facts, and this facts produces different opinions.
Looking at the two statements, there is only one fact talked about in the statement, which is "Sunrise", and it is said that it rises in Nashville every morning, it is not tied to anything else that would raise another fact, so there is only one fact , which cant establish an argument.
So therefore, the argument,(i.e if there is any), is weak because there is only one specific case established.
The correct answer is B.
The house of commons and the elected senate.
