In the context of positive and normative analysis, national powers and state powers are most likely to conflict with each other when:

• A. economic models ignore the role of government intervention
• B. both federal and state governments agree on the allocation of resources
• C. normative judgments about policy goals differ between federal and state governments
• D. positive analysis leads to identical predictions at both levels of government

Answer: (C)

Verified step by step guidance

1. Step 1: Understand the difference between positive and normative analysis. Positive analysis deals with objective, fact-based statements that can be tested or validated, such as economic models and predictions. Normative analysis involves subjective judgments about what ought to be, including policy goals and value-based decisions.
2. Step 2: Recognize that conflicts between national (federal) and state powers often arise when there are disagreements about policy goals, which are normative in nature. This is because each level of government may have different priorities or values influencing their decisions.
3. Step 3: Analyze why ignoring government intervention in economic models (a positive analysis aspect) is less likely to cause conflict between federal and state powers, as it pertains to the assumptions of the model rather than policy goals.
4. Step 4: Consider that agreement on resource allocation between federal and state governments implies harmony rather than conflict, so this scenario does not explain when conflicts are most likely.
5. Step 5: Conclude that conflicts are most likely when normative judgments about policy goals differ between federal and state governments, as these involve subjective preferences and priorities that can lead to disagreements on policy implementation.