y lives as well as in the political realm. It concerns itself with the cost-benefit of these preferences and beliefs, the actual utility of a specific method or decision that may be considered and whether the preferences and beliefs of any given individual are transitive, meaning that they are "internally consistent" (2) with his or her preferences and beliefs. Based on all these criteria the individual can then make a rational choice. The rational choicer believes that this method brings the study of politics much closer to a true scientific study, " Political science isn't rocket science, but this emphasis on explanation and analysis moves it closer in form to the physical and natural sciences than was the case in an earlier era." (3) It is important to note however that not all political scholars share this view some actually strongly oppose it.
             This opposition is depicted in the article "When did Political Science forget about politics?" This article focuses more on the evolution of the theory, why it became so popular so quickly, but most importantly focuses on some of the challenges and obstacles that it has been faced with from other scholars who oppose the theory. The founders of the rational choice theory believe that their quest for "universal and logically consistent theories make them the only true practitioners of political science" (4) and that other highly descriptive methods, like the case study for example, should be diminished in importance when looking at politics. Some would argue, however that it is this strong conviction towards their method and their dedication to promoting it, rather then the actual practicality of it that has thrust this theory so far. Indeed, some scholars such as Donald Green and Ian Shapiro have attack
             ...