The article by Ragin and Zaret considers two comparative research strategies, the ones of Durkheim and Weber. Both of them are used in sociological analytical studies to reach the objectives of explanation and draw general conclusions. However, the approaches differ as Weber upholds the principle of using ideal social types in analysis while Durkheim suggests comparing real social models, taking into consideration massive statistic data. According to Ragin and Zaret, the corner-stone of Durkheim’s theory is that social types, which existed in history and are now represented in reality, are more suitable for analysis than ideal models (734). To justify this principle and prove its effectiveness, Durkheim compares social models with biological organisms. In such natural sciences as ethology and genetics, it is useless to compare and analyze two non-existent systems as the result of such research cannot be applied in practice or further studies. In consequence, the next basic point of Durkheim’s theory is that, while analyzing any real society, the roots and origins of each phenomenon should be thoroughly studied (Ragin and Zaret 735). Only if this condition is maintained, two systems can be compared on a scientific, sociological basis. Following this, to create a detailed and plausible analysis, one should concern a large number of social types and find out the initial causes of various phenomena, which characterize the societies under study (Ragin and Zaret 739). For this purpose, statistical methods should be implemented in research. Thus, it means an analysis based on facts and figures. Moreover, Durkheim’s approach leaves almost no room for abstract speculations, which may prevent sociological research from being objective. According to Ragin and Zaret, although Weber’s approach deals with concrete historical cases, for drawing comparisons, it uses ideal models (741). On the one hand, such a system can be useful when the factual basis is insufficient, for instance, there are not enough figures. On the other hand, searching for roots and causes in an ideally constructed model may lead to false results and unsubstantiated comparisons. Further on, Weber’s approach implies genetic explanation to historical diversity (Ragin and Zaret 743). It means that concrete cases and their features should be considered, not abstract ones. Contrary to Durkheim’s approach, genetic explanation, though it deals with ideal patterns, describes reasons for various phenomena, which are seen as connected with each other in a cause-and-effect manner. This kind of explanation can be called the main advantage of Weber’s system as it is, in many ways, similar to genetics as an exact natural science. Various scholars, such as Moore, successfully apply Weber’s genetic explanation. To explain the way which seven modern societies have traveled through history, he operates with three ideal social types (Ragin and Zaret 745). Moore’s conclusions imply that every previous historical phase causes and predetermines the following one. According to Ragin and Zaret, both Weberian and Durkheimian patterns separated sociology from history (731). Both models use factual material and abstract generalizations, avoiding