The article “The Dying Russians” presents the studies done surrounding the increasing death rates and depopulation of Russia over the past few decades. One study was done by Michelle Parsons, an anthropologist. It largely focuses on the cultural influences that could have led to this “problem.” Much of her research and conclusion, while based on cultural observances, fails to be based on facts that focus on the gradual and smaller changes that occurred in Russia that led to its depopulation. This leads to her study being less accurate because instead of focusing on the many little things that have led to this problem in Russia, she only focuses on general trends. As we have learned, the answers are usually found in the smaller details rather than the larger overviews. Parsons’s methods and conclusions are then contrasted with Nicholas Eberstadt’s methods and conclusions. Through this contrast, it is easy to see why a focused study is important. By looking at many little facts, researchers are able to gain a more accurate picture of what was happening during the time period they were studying and why it was happening. His study was extensive, analyzing not only what the causes could be, but also what the causes could not be. While not a perfect study, this study is much more reliable and believable. It behaves more like the common scientific studies we know. We will never be able to know for sure what the definite reasons for Russia’s depopulation are; however, in a way, that is the beauty of political science. Some say that there should be no distinction made between sciences (i.e. social sciences, natural sciences). However, I think that this article shows exactly why those distinctions are necessary. The different sciences are inherently different. That statement does not mean that one is necessarily better or more accurate than another, but just that they are different and should not be treated as entities that are one in the same.