It seems to be human nature to ask causal questions such as "Why did this happen?" Referring to Figures 1.1 and 1.2, what differentiates political science from the layman theorizing about cause and effect?

What will be an ideal response?

An ideal response will:
1, Explain that political scientists tend to see the political world in a much more complex way than laypersons. Simple explanations are not always adequate. Laypersons, on the other hand, may prefer simple explanations.
2, Note that political scientists are more likely to acknowledge that correlation does not equal causation. Laypersons may look at two events and assume that just because they occur together, one must cause the other.
3, Indicate that although some events occur together, some other factor explains them. Thus there is a spurious relationship.
4, Provide an example of how correlation could be mistaken for causation. For example, the National Rifle Association (NRA) might financially support a politician who votes for a law easing restrictions on guns. A layperson might conclude that this implied vote buying or that the contribution influenced the politician's vote. However, a political scientist might note that the NRA supports politicians who are already likely to support gun rights.