(1) What information would a well-informed student of public opinion insist upon knowing before accepting a particular poll as a legitimate reflection of mass belief? (Do not just enumerate the information; rather, explain how each piece of information might bear upon the proper assessment of the poll.)

(2) Suppose you are interviewing for a job as a pollster with a candidate for local office. The candidate tells you that s/he doesn't believe in polls because they base their conclusions on such a small number of interviews and, even if that wasn't a problem, polls are unnecessary because the candidate talks to a lot of people and knows what the public is thinking. Then, the candidate tells you that s/he thinks you should just conduct focus groups for the campaign. Assuming you want the job and believe in the candidate, how would you respond to this candidate?

(3) Here is a question that appeared on a mail questionnaire:

Sulfur dioxide from industrial smokestacks has caused the phenomenon called acid rain. This rapidly growing threat to our forests, lakes and human health has already killed thousands of lakes in the United States and Canada. The Clinton Administration in Washington has argued that we don't know enough about the problem to devise an appropriate remedy. How aggressively should we forbid industries from venting sulfurous particulates into the upper atmosphere?

(1) Very aggressively - high fines for polluters and major tax increases

(2) Not very agressively - moderate fines for polluters and minor tax increase

(3) Not aggressively - small fines for polluters and no tax increases

Provide a critique of this question. Make sure you not only tell me what is wrong with the question but why each aspect you criticize is a problem.