I find Masha Gessen’s claim in “The Dying Russians” that broken hearts were the cause of dying in Russia provocative but not scientific and therefore ultimately not compelling. Her story about her time in Russia which she begins the piece with is captivating. It probably does capture certain aspects of the problems that effect Russia. However, it is just anecdotal. Gessen is unable to recognize or chooses not to acknowledge the limitations of anecdotal evidence and that is ultimately the reason why her argument fails. She chooses to fit the data to reflect her initial explanation of her experience rather than be open to amending or changing her explanation entirely. This is an example of the “method-driven” political science that Shapiro talks about. Her methodology is also very flawed.  She focuses on “[ticking] off a list of culprits” instead of proving her own claim. She argues that if it’s not infectious disease, not diet, not the environment, not alcohol, not a typical cause then it must be a broken heart. Eliminating other popular explanations is never enough evidence itself to prove your claim. She needed to provide evidence for her explanation, and she does not do so, nor does she provide a framework for studying what she means by “broken hearts” (i.e. tangible indicators). Broken hearts are also less causal factors of death then correlated symptoms of the same problem. It is as much the cause of death as per capita cheese consumption is the cause of people who die by becoming tangled in their bedsheets.