Week 13 — Design a Comparative Test: One Explanation, Two Made-Up Countries, One Index

Assignment 12 of the term — design a comparison of two made-up countries that could test one explanation of democratization, read a governance index for what it measures and does not, and explain to a relative why a low score is not a verdict on a people.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, well-labelled design. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week you learned the comparative method's two designs, the problem of many variables and a small N, state capacity as a dimension separate from regime type, four competing explanations of democratization, and how to read Freedom in the World 2026 and V-Dem's Democracy Report 2026 with their edition and year. Week 5 sorted regimes into democracies and autocracies, and Week 12 kept a correlation apart from a cause; this assignment puts both to work. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Political Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles.

The task

You will design a small comparative study and read one real index. Every country you invent is illustrative: it is not a real country, and no real person or current officeholder belongs in it.

Work these two problems, showing how you got each count:

1. Your made-up comparison follows 2 countries and observes each one at 4 elections. How many observations does your comparison have?
2. Your made-up governance index scores 6 political-rights indicators and 9 civil-liberties indicators, each from 0 to 4. What is the top possible total score?

Beside each count, add the interpretation that makes it political science:

• Problem 1, the comparison. Choose one of this week's four explanations of democratization (modernization, institutions, political culture, or the resource curse). Design a comparison of two made-up countries that could test it: name the design (most-similar or most-different), list at least three traits the countries share or differ on and the outcome you are comparing, and say what the comparison could show and what it could not. Explain how observing each country at several elections helps with the many-variables, small-N problem and why it still does not add countries. Place both countries on the two dimensions of state capacity and regime type. Then state the strongest case for one rival explanation as its defenders would put it, give your reply, and label at least one of your premises empirical and one normative.
• Problem 2, the index. Say what your made-up index's top total means and why a total built from expert coding is still a judgment process. Then read one real, pinned score with the data scaffold: Botswana scored 75 in Freedom in the World 2026, covering 2025, rated Free, from 31 for political rights and 44 for civil liberties. Say what is measured, over whom and when, what the score shows, what it does not show, and whether it shows a correlation or a cause. Finish by explaining why Freedom House's "Free" and V-Dem's "liberal democracy" are never merged, even when their counts sit close.

Explain it to a non-expert

A relative reads a headline about a country with a low governance score and says, "That country's people must not care about freedom." Write a 3–5 sentence message to that relative that explains, in everyday words, what an index score measures, why it is never a verdict on a people, and names one limit of what a single score can tell you. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a friend explaining a neighborhood's walkability score to someone choosing an apartment. Model answer: "The walkability score adds up how many shops, parks, and bus stops are within a short walk, using a published checklist. It tells you what is nearby on paper, not whether the people who live there like walking. It cannot tell you why the shops are there or whether the sidewalks feel safe at night, so visit before you decide."

Use that pattern for your message to the relative, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both counts, your comparison design and capacity-grid placements, your index read, and your message to the relative before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show how you got each count when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one design choice, placement, index read, or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you, and it will not tell you which explanation of democratization is better.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory political science course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's comparative politics: most-similar and most-different designs; many variables, small N; state capacity and regime type as two separate dimensions; the four explanations of democratization; and reading a governance index with its edition and year. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a country score, or a quotation, never tell me which explanation of democratization is better, never judge any real country's people, and never bring in a living politician, a current officeholder, a party, or a current government.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. My countries and my index are illustrative.
PROBLEM P1: Your made-up comparison follows 2 countries and observes each one at 4 elections. How many observations does your comparison have?
PROBLEM P2: Your made-up governance index scores 6 political-rights indicators and 9 civil-liberties indicators, each from 0 to 4. What is the top possible total score?
After each count, I must interpret it: for P1, a named design (most-similar or most-different) for two made-up countries with at least three listed traits and the outcome, what the comparison could and could not show, why observing each country at several elections helps with many variables, small N but adds no countries, both countries placed on state capacity and regime type, the strongest case for one rival explanation stated charitably with my reply, and at least one empirical and one normative premise labelled by kind; for P2, what the top total means and why expert coding is still a judgment process, a data-scaffold read of Botswana's pinned score, and why Freedom House's Free and V-Dem's liberal democracy are never merged. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a relative who believes a low-scoring country's people do not care about freedom, explaining in everyday words what an index score measures, why it is never a verdict on a people, and one limit of a single score. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.
Course facts to hold me to: a most-similar systems design compares cases alike in most respects that differ in the outcome; a most-different systems design compares cases unlike in most respects that share an outcome; both narrow explanations and never prove a cause (Przeworski and Teune, 1970). Many variables, small N (Lijphart, 1971) means many possible explanations and few cases; the partial fixes are to extend across time, narrow the property space, and pick comparable cases. State capacity is whether a state can tax, deliver services, and enforce its laws across its whole territory, separate from regime type; all four combinations are real. Modernization theory (Lipset, 1959) rests on a robust correlation between wealth and democracy whose mechanism and direction are still debated; institutions (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2012), political culture (with the circularity critique), and the resource curse (Ross, 2001) compete with it, with no winner. Freedom in the World 2026, covering 2025, scores 25 indicators (10 political rights, 15 civil liberties) from 0 to 4 for a total of 0 to 100, and rated Botswana 75, Free (31 and 44). V-Dem's categories are liberal democracy, electoral democracy, electoral autocracy, and closed autocracy. An index reports conditions as expert coders scored them; it never shows a cause and is never a verdict on a people.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct counts (20 points), political-science reasoning (40 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (20 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 count points, 10 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 5 showing-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my message to the relative only with P2.
COUNT UNITS: A correct count = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing count or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, all parts accurate (a named design with at least three traits and the outcome, what it could and could not show, why repeated elections help but add no countries, both countries placed on the two dimensions, a charitable rival explanation with a reply, and premises labelled by kind) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. For P2, all parts accurate (the meaning of the top total and the judgment-process point, the data-scaffold read of Botswana's score ending on correlation or cause, the reason the two indices' categories are never merged, and the message to the relative with one limit) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. Calling a design proof of a cause, treating state capacity and regime type as one axis, reading a cause off a score, or treating a score as a verdict on a people earns no unit for that part. Naming a term alone does not earn a unit.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labelled evidence understandable to someone new to political science, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the starting values and the operation behind the count are visible = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a count alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both counts with their interpretations AND written my message to the relative AND revised at least one design choice, placement, index read, or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; never round it. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my counts and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with both counts, your comparison design and capacity-grid placements, your index read, and your message to the relative — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of your two countries on the capacity grid with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 13 skills — designing a most-similar or most-different comparison and saying what it can and cannot show, handling many variables and a small N, placing countries on state capacity and regime type, stating a rival explanation of democratization charitably, and reading a governance index with its edition and year — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, your comparison design and placements, your index read, and the message to the relative. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that answers one of two reflection options of equal weight, your choice: (a) which design choice, placement, or index read you changed, what prompted the change, and one question you still have; or (b) where your first draft read a correlation or a score as if it showed a cause, why that was easy to do, and how you checked it. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The comparison design, the counts, the index read, the revision, and the final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment, write your defense, invent a country score, or add evidence you did not produce, and cite index figures only from this week's pinned editions. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com