Using the attached article: "Narrow Victoriesand Hard Games:Revisiting thePrimary DivisivenessHypothesis" by Amber Wichowsky write a critical paper with two sections of roughlyequal length: with (a) an analytic summary of the article; and (b) responses to a set of discussion questions.

Two pages for each of these sections should suffice. I am still going to go back through to add more information and edit but please should try your best.

The second attachment includes more in depth instructions for the critical paper including formatting and what the paper should include.

For the discussion section, out of these 3 options, feel free to choose 2 to discuss (Write about 2-2.5 paragraphs for each question).

2: Is there any part of the article—either the argument or the evidence—that you find unconvincing? If so,how might you revise the argument or re-design the study to make it more convincing? And whatdifferences might you expect to find if the study were conducted in this alternative manner? (Keep in mindthat the burden is on you to convince me. If you argue that the study’s weakness is that it only looks at2000-2012, tell me specifically why including other years might make a difference.)

3. What future directions would you explore in this area of scholarship? What would you like to learn thatgoes beyond the scope of this article? What would your hypotheses be?

4. Discuss the implications of the article’s findings. For example, what do the findings imply about politicalparties or American democracy in general? If the article’s findings imply a problem, what reforms mightsolve it? You may offer your opinion, but this response should still be written in an analytical manner thatreflects knowledge attained in this class and the realities of American politics. For example, don’t write thisproblem would be solved “if politicians would be honest” or “if voters would just educate themselves.”

If you have any firther questions, feel free to reach out to me.

Thank you so much!