Business Statistics: Main Aspects Free Sample


The randomized complete block design is used in the experiment when there are two factors affecting its outcome. It is inappropriate to consider only one factor to explain the outcome of the experiment. If only one factor is considered, then it will lead to the wrong results of the experiment (Groebner, Shannon, & Fry, 2011). For example, if a company has several products and it could only introduce one product into the new market, then its products are considered as the first factor.

The success of the company’s products in the new market also depends on the size of the market. The size of the market is the second factor that also affects the decision of the company regarding the product that it could introduce in the new market. Therefore, the company’s expected revenue (outcome) depends on both factors (blocks), and it is not suitable to consider just one of them. In this case, the use of the randomized complete block design is suitable.


The t-test is applicable when there are two samples and the pooled variance is calculated based on the variances of the two samples. However, if there are more than two samples, then the t-test is not useful. It is the discrepancy of the t-test. The following example could be considered to understand this discrepancy.

If there are three populations, then a two-sample t-test can be used to compare only two populations. The third population is left out which affects the calculation of pooled variance within three sample populations. In such cases, Turkey-Kramer or LSD tests are useful to estimate pooled variance by considering sample variance of all three populations (Groebner, Shannon, & Fry, 2011).


Groebner, D. F., Shannon, P. W., & Fry, P. C. (2011). Business Statistics (8th ed.). New Jersey, NY: Pearson.

Clausewitz’s Paradoxical Trinity Throughout History


The concept of war is as old as the human world, as wars permeate the entire history of humanity. Many events caused wars, but all of them can be divided into three types that Carl von Clausewitz distinguishes in his theory. In short, he calls these reasons passion, probability, and policy. However, for the last couple of centuries, the notion of war has been reconsidered several times. Thus, the principles of warfare began to change in the 18th century due to Frederick the Great, a Prussian king whose methods were aimed at winning wars without bloody battles and, despite Clausewitz’s Paradoxical Trinity claiming that human casualties in wars are inevitable, this tendency is continuing now, which is definitely for the better.

Carl von Clausewitz’s Paradoxical Trinity and Frederick the Great

In general, in his theory of paradoxical trinity, Carl von Clausewitz tries to explain the nature of war. Clausewitz states that any war consists of three core elements that he called “dominant tendencies”. The first element is made of violence, abhorrence, and animosity; the second element is caused by a chance, and the third element consists of subordination and hierarchy which are instruments of policy. At the same time, military revolutions comprise systems development, technological change, organizational adaptation, and operational innovation.1

Thus, the first and the central element of Clausewitz’s theory is people with all their fears, beliefs, caprices, vanities, complacencies, and so on. In this respect, these feelings that cannot be eliminated and are unpredictable can and have caused many wars. As noted by Clausewitz, the enemy’s annihilation is the paramount principle of war that causes the mentioned points.2 In terms of Frederick the Great’s strategy, he tried to abstract from these feelings and conduct wars being exclusively guided by logic and common sense.

The second element of Clausewitz’s theory is military commanders and their armies. He highlights the opposition between several belligerents that have their warlords and armies. He also claims that war is a continuous opposition between these belligerents that consist of animate objects who always tend to respond to each other’s actions3. For example, among the belligerents in World War II, there were the US, the UK, Germany, USSR, and others. As for Frederick the Great, he fought only when it was necessary to defend his land. He was not interested in the competition between the armies. Paradoxically, he started wars to make peace.

The third element of Clausewitz’s theory is the government. In this respect, he states that direct combat between people is the core of the concept of war, and it does not matter if such collisions in a war truly happen. However, the main idea of this combat, which is usually implicit, is universal. Clausewitz’s focus on combat does not presuppose that he thought that the goal could not be achieved without combat, but that this goal was entirely based on the expected consequences of fighting and perceived threat.4 Frederick the Great, though being a king, always tried to avoid situations where he had to initiate wars for political reasons. In his time, it was very difficult to do, but, overall, he followed his principle until his death.

Additionally, Clausewitz claims that these simple ideas that explain the reasons why wars occur are frequently omitted or completely ignored. Clausewitz also states that the belief that one can win a war without fighting but using certain political strategies conceals the fact that these victories depend on the possibility of direct engagement.5 However, Frederick the Great is a vivid example that it is possible to win a war without violent battles.

The Role of Frederick the Great as a Warlord

Frederick the Great was a Prussian king from 1740 to 1786. He is considered one of the most significant and influential monarchs in German history. He is known primarily for his military accomplishments, though he also was a great supporter of different kinds of arts. Also, despite being a military man, his ruling style was based not on fear from the people of his country but their love.

In terms of warfare, Frederick the Great developed his military tactics that proved to be effective and were one of the main reasons for his success. In the eighteenth century, due to the great costs of building large armies, the main focus of the contemporary warlords was fortifications. Thus, instead of engaging in bloody battles, warlords developed strategies for a successful siege. However, to protect his kingdom, Frederick had to develop new more effective strategies of warfare. When planning a military operation, he always concentrated on the two most valuable qualities of his army, namely, their discipline and their central position.

One of the main peculiarities of Frederick’s military-style was attacking and focusing on one enemy and then on the other, assembling at crucial positions, and avoiding protracted wars. His focus on the central position allowed him to deal with the enemy’s armies before they receive reinforcements from their allies.6 In general, his main strategy was to achieve victory without direct fighting. Instead, he needed to develop various maneuvers and cunning tricks, using terrain and certain geographical positions and creating a system of angles and lines in his military operations to avoid bloody combats.

Additionally, Frederick the Great lived in the period of Enlightenment, in which people focused on arts and science. Therefore, it was peculiar for that time to develop techniques that would allow winning wars without fighting and bloodshed. In this respect, Frederick the Great managed to achieve better results than other warlords and monarchs of his time.7 However, unfortunately, in several decades, this theory of achieving victory without fighting was ousted by bloody battles caused by the French Revolution.

Warfare Strategies After Frederick the Great

Warfare strategies used in the 18th century, particularly by Frederick the Great, were quite optimistic, as they primarily focused not on the principle of who is stronger, but on that who is more cunning. This created a possibility that wars could be won with a minimum or even without any human casualties. However, as Clausewitz states, it is impossible to achieve such outcomes in every war, as people are fighting with animate objects who can also think, feel, and outmaneuver their enemies.8

According to his Trinity, since people are emotional, they can violate any rules they create. For example, even if people agree to stop killing each other, somebody will eventually break that rule because of anger, envy, or some other strong emotions. At Frederick’s time, it was especially impossible, as not many warlords supported the tactics of winning wars without battles.

In the subsequent century, warfare changed (mostly due to the French Revolution), and many armies were involved in bloody battles. In the 20th century, violence at war reached its peak. Also, due to the advancements of technologies in the military sphere, the number of casualties was bigger than ever before. Thus, instead of trying to use new technologies to help people and concentrate on their protection, warlords were engaged in the competition, where the victor is the one who manages to build the deadliest weapon.9 As a result, the atomic bomb was created and used on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this respect, Clausewitz’s trinity claims that people use technological advancements to kill other people who are their enemies, instead of focusing on peaceful matters.

In the 21st century, due to the rapid development of information technologies, warfare strategies changed again. Now, in developed countries, diplomacy became the main weapon in any war. Nevertheless, there are still a lot of conflicts and wars in the world where soldiers engage in battles using lethal weapons such as chemical and biological.10 However, despite Clausewitz’s theory claims that wars are inevitable due to human nature, there is always hope that humanity will evolve and, at some point, the concept of war will cease to exist.


Thus, it is evident that Clausewitz’s Paradoxical Trinity is still relevant today, as it focuses primarily on the principles of human nature that are considered unchangeable. However, humanity continues developing, and considering the results that it has achieved by now, there is hope that it will be able to adjust its nature to new conditions and stop initiating wars.


Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.

Knox, MacGregor, and Williamson Murray, eds. The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300–2050. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Paret, Peter, ed. Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.

Parker, Geoffrey, ed. The Cambridge History of Warfare. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.


  1. Knox and Murray, eds., The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300–2050 (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 18.
  2. Parker, ed., The Cambridge History of Warfare, 110.
  3. Paret, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, 711.
  4. Clausewitz, On War, 96.
  5. Clausewitz, On War, 230.
  6. Clausewitz, On War, 242.
  7. Paret, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, 95.
  8. Clausewitz, On War, 149.
  9. Knox and Murray, eds., The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300–2050, 74.
  10. Parker, ed., The Cambridge History of Warfare, 425.

Universal Healthcare: Budget Benefits And Threats

Universal health care is aimed at offering an itemized health care bundle which will be of assistance to every individual of the society with the objective of making available economic risk safety, enhanced health outcomes and better-quality admittance to health facilities (Glasziou, Moynihan, Richards, & Godlee, 2013). Universal healthcare is the kind of health care strategy in which every individual of the society can obtain health treatment regardless of their social standing, revenue, age, sex, race, previous illnesses, and financial status. This means that any individual, legally residing in the area where universal health care is adopted, automatically qualifies for universal health care.

Universal care advantages

Equivalent admission to healthcare

The key benefit of this category of health care is that it offers individuals unable to pay for health care the facilities they need. This health care organization offers simple health care services to all residents, and it does not segregate anyone. It benefits those who are not working or have other complications when trying to get health care in a moment of need (Bisht, 2013). This is possibly the utmost benefit of universal health care as every individual following this type of health strategy can be capable of accessing health care regardless of his or her social standing. Taking into consideration the fact that all people are equal, the poor should be able to obtain the same sort of health care that could only be paid for by a wealthy individual under regular conditions (Bisht, 2013). This category of health care does not categorize or differentiate. It provides all the members of the society with equal rights when it comes to health care.

Public health development

The whole population contributes to the health care budget so every individual can get the elementary care that they require at any rate. This kind of health care will benefit in refining the health of the overall populace since every member of the society has an identical admittance to the health care (Bisht, 2013). Consequently, it will cause the decrease in the number of complaints filed by the overall population, form a healthier society, and improve efficiency. The residents can get unrestricted treatments for the uncomplicated situations without the distress of not being capable of paying for them (Bisht, 2013). This can assist in reducing the prevalence of communicable illnesses and other public health difficulties that most of the individuals may disregard if they do not have enough money for the health care.

Commercial and economic benefits

More than a half of the American population is appreciating health coverage through their company in the private segment. The high price that is connected to compensating the worker’s health coverage puts the US private industries at a competitive disadvantage in the global market (Bisht, 2013). With universal healthcare, remote industries can make space for the deposit use for health coverage. This would be beneficial for other areas of their commerce. This could decrease company labor charges by more than 15% (Tangcharoensathien & Evans, 2013). Certainly, individuals work more when they live better lives which permit them to subsidize as much as they can to the country’s budget. Universal health care is a means of raising the standard level of living of every member of the society which will cause an increase in financial output.

Universal care disadvantages

Collectivist government

The current US health care market is represented by a free marketplace organization. Basically, market services regulate the obtainability and price of health care services (Bisht, 2013). The implementation of universal health care will cause a massive alteration in the economy. It could be an initial step in the direction of the government monitoring other features of the country budget. The universal health care will diminish the sum of money medics can make (Bisht, 2013). This could generate the deficiency in medical experts in the long-run. Those with advanced revenues may protest that their income is going to serve as the payment option for the health care of other people when it should be a payment option for their own health care.

Government debt growth

This is perhaps the main argument against the universal health care. Employing an individual financier health care system creates an upsurge in taxes as the organization requires to be paid for (Bisht, 2013). The total costs of the system can be rather challenging for the country’s budget and trigger large debts. The existing US management health care agendas, such as Medicare, are now putting an enormous tension on the public budget. A universal healthcare program would be equal to a massive growth in management costs and debt (Bisht, 2013). The country’s administration is not excellent in managing complex organizations, and the fact that the government manages health care can trigger numerous complications (Bisht, 2013).


In conclusion, the single financier organization in the US is challenged by the entangled radical and strategical difficulties that are insoluble. For many years, the United States are confronted by a deficiency in expenses controls, and this cannot be corrected instantly. At present, the single financier health organization is not governmentally feasible, and the price attached to it is disproportionate. There would be a decrease in the eminence of health care, and numerous people would lose their jobs if this plan is executed.


Bisht, R. (2013). Universal Health Care: The Changing International Discourse. Indian Journal of Public Health, 57(4), 236-241.

Glasziou, P., Moynihan, R., Richards, T., & Godlee, F. (2013). Too Much Medicine; Too Little Care. BMJ, 347(2), 3-21.

Tangcharoensathien, V., & Evans, D. (2013). Beyond Clinical Skills: Key Capacities needed for Universal Health Coverage. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 91(11), 45-49. Web.