This is an example of how the alternatives in question are not on a single logical basis, and two. The first logical basis - whether it is permanent or temporary work, which means the content of the question. The second reason is lack of jobs.
At first glance, nothing special in that mix various logical grounds in a single question. The Respondent picks one alternative, i.e. it has a permanent job or temporary or does not work at all. And depending on the selection we get the data for each of the alternatives and we conclude how many people are employed, among them permanent or temporary, and how much is not working. If such a study goes in the system of simple distributions and absolute data, in principle, such a construction of alternatives possible.
But as soon as we move to a system of logical distribution of the data, such form of construction of the alternatives is unacceptable. Why? What happens when you mix different logical reason?
When we ask the question how many people have permanent or temporary work, these data concern only a certain category of people, namely those who have a job, and quite naturally, on this basis falls a group of people without a job. Similarly, in this case we will be interested in, married or not, whether have children, what are their living conditions, etc., And if the sociologist, when deciding on determination of nature of employment, introduces alternatives in the presence of children or individual flats, it will blame the inability to build a question. But no one would have claims if in question about the nature of the employment it will introduce an alternative to the "not working"; in the question about the number of children will introduce an alternative to their presence or absence; the question of where currently the Respondent is a student will put the alternative to "not studying". A mixture of bases is quite frequently, if not constantly. Almost any profile to meet the question, which alternative is constructed on two or more grounds.![]()
At first glance, nothing special in that mix various logical grounds in a single question. The Respondent picks one alternative, i.e. it has a permanent job or temporary or does not work at all. And depending on the selection we get the data for each of the alternatives and we conclude how many people are employed, among them permanent or temporary, and how much is not working. If such a study goes in the system of simple distributions and absolute data, in principle, such a construction of alternatives possible.
But as soon as we move to a system of logical distribution of the data, such form of construction of the alternatives is unacceptable. Why? What happens when you mix different logical reason?
When we ask the question how many people have permanent or temporary work, these data concern only a certain category of people, namely those who have a job, and quite naturally, on this basis falls a group of people without a job. Similarly, in this case we will be interested in, married or not, whether have children, what are their living conditions, etc., And if the sociologist, when deciding on determination of nature of employment, introduces alternatives in the presence of children or individual flats, it will blame the inability to build a question. But no one would have claims if in question about the nature of the employment it will introduce an alternative to the "not working"; in the question about the number of children will introduce an alternative to their presence or absence; the question of where currently the Respondent is a student will put the alternative to "not studying". A mixture of bases is quite frequently, if not constantly. Almost any profile to meet the question, which alternative is constructed on two or more grounds.