PT158 · S3 · Q23 According to rational-choice theory

The sociologists' principle is that complex phenomena cannot be caused by simple phenomena. This does not mean they believe complex phenomena generally have "many complex causes." Their principle distinguishes only between simple and complex causes — it does not make a claim about the quantity of causes. A complex phenomenon might have a single complex cause, according to their logic. This answer adds a claim about multiplicity ("many complex causes") that goes beyond what the sociologists' stated principle requires. The passage gives us their principle about simple vs. complex, not a theory about how many causes complex phenomena typically have.

The passage says nothing about religious and cultural causes of political phenomena. The sociologists' objection is structural — they argue that a simple phenomenon cannot cause a complex one. They do not specify what the correct (complex) cause would be. They might believe the causes are cultural, religious, economic, social, or something else entirely — the passage provides no information about their preferred alternative explanation. This answer introduces a specific alternative causal theory that is nowhere mentioned or implied in the passage.

The sociologists' argument depends on popular support for political parties BEING a complex phenomenon. They argue: complex phenomena cannot be caused by simple phenomena; therefore, individual economic decisions (simple) cannot explain political party support (complex). If popular support were never a complex phenomenon, the sociologists' own principle would have no application to this case, and their objection would be meaningless. This answer claims the sociologists believe popular support is never complex — the exact opposite of what their argument requires. Their argument only works BECAUSE they consider it complex.

The passage describes rational-choice theory as explaining support through decisions motivated by "greatest economic advantage." The sociologists oppose the theory's causal structure, not its claim about voter motivation. Nothing in the passage suggests the sociologists believe voters are not influenced by economic considerations. They simply believe that economically motivated individual decisions — even if they exist — are too simple a cause for a complex phenomenon like the rise of political organizations. The sociologists' complaint is about simplicity vs. complexity of causal mechanisms, not about whether economic beliefs actually influence voters.