GOV-03 · Two-state comparison

Compare how two real jurisdictions handle the same policy problem differently, and explain what the difference actually produces.

One real policy problem addressed differently by at least two real jurisdictions (states, counties, or cities). Each jurisdiction's own statute, regulation, or program description. Any publicly available outcome data each jurisdiction has published on the policy's effect.

Comparing a caricature of one jurisdiction's policy instead of its actual text. Claiming one approach "works better" from outcome data that does not actually isolate the policy's effect. Picking two jurisdictions so similar there is nothing to compare.

Side-by-side comparison of each jurisdiction's actual policy text; an outcomes section citing what public data exists (and naming what it cannot show, e.g. confounding factors); a reasoned judgment about which approach fits which kind of jurisdiction, not a universal winner.

CT: comparison as evidence, not preference. CR: policy text and data traceable to real sources. CO: peer checks the comparison table against one jurisdiction's actual text. CM: comparison table + outcomes section. CZ: residents of each jurisdiction under a policy the student has not lived under.

Government or social studies teacher reviews the comparison for fairness to both jurisdictions. School-supervised.

R1: one problem, two jurisdictions. R2: policy text and data traceable to real sources. R3: comparison table uses comparable categories. R4: confounding factors in the outcome data named. R5: judgment section reasoned, not asserted.

(a) A comparison that never actually quotes either jurisdiction's real policy text. (b) An outcome claim that ignores an obvious confounding factor the source data itself flags.

Lane A immediately. No verified credit claim.