Correct option is B
For Hartshorne, geography is what geographers have made it while Schaefer worked on what geography should be. Hartshorne viewed geography as a discipline shaped by its historical development and contributions of individual geographers. He emphasized that geography’s identity lies in the work geographers have done in describing and analyzing places over time. In contrast, Schaefer was forward-looking, proposing what geography
should become.
Schaefer advocated for formulation of laws in geography. Schaefer was a proponent of applying the scientific method to geography, which involved creating generalizable laws that could explain geographic phenomena. He believed that geography should not limit itself to describing unique regions (which he referred to as exceptionalism) but should strive to find patterns and regularities that could lead to the development of laws.
Information Booster:
·
Richard Hartshorne promoted the concept of areal differentiation, focusing on unique characteristics of places.
·
Fred K. Schaefer argued for the formulation of general laws in geography, advocating for a more scientific approach.
· Hartshorne’s approach emphasized geography as a descriptive science, focusing on the unique attributes of regions.
· Schaefer criticized Hartshorne's exceptionalism and believed geography should move towards a law-making discipline like the natural sciences.
Additional Knowledge:
Schaefer promoted the study of areal differentiation is incorrect. Schaefer was against areal differentiation, advocating for a more scientific, law-based approach.
Schaefer was against the application of positivist methods in geography is incorrect. Schaefer was a strong advocate of positivism, which involves the application of scientific methods and the creation of universal laws in geography.