Exercise 1: Kerensky's "Power Without Authority" / "Authority Without Power" — Possible Solution
==================================================================================================================

This exercise is asking you to unpack a compact, precise description of
dual power and explain why the specific imbalance it names made the
arrangement inherently unstable, not just awkward.

WHAT "AUTHORITY WITHOUT POWER" MEANS
The Provisional Government held real, formal legitimacy - it was
recognized internationally, it issued laws, it appointed ministers. But
it had no independent means of actually enforcing its own decisions,
since it commanded no real loyalty from the soldiers and workers whose
cooperation any government in Petrograd actually needed.

WHAT "POWER WITHOUT AUTHORITY" MEANS
The Petrograd Soviet held the opposite: genuine practical influence over
soldiers and workers, who took their real direction from Soviet
decrees like Order No. 1 rather than the government's own orders. But
the Soviet had no formal legal standing as the actual government of
Russia, and made no claim to be one.

WHY THIS SPECIFIC SPLIT WAS UNSTABLE, NOT JUST INCONVENIENT
A government with authority but no power cannot actually govern - it
can issue decisions nobody is obligated to follow. A body with power
but no authority cannot rule cleanly either, since it has no formal
mandate and no interest, initially, in claiming one directly. The two
halves needed each other to function at all, which meant neither could
act decisively without the other's real cooperation, and both were
vulnerable to any third party willing to seize the missing half of the
equation for itself - exactly what the Bolsheviks eventually did.

ANSWER: Kerensky's description captures a genuine structural gap - the
Provisional Government had the legal right to rule without the actual
means to enforce that rule, and the Soviet had the practical means to
enforce decisions without the formal right to make them alone. That
split meant real governance depended on cooperation between two bodies
with no formal obligation to cooperate, leaving the door open for
whichever faction could eventually combine both halves for itself.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It treats "power" and "authority" as two genuinely separate things
rather than synonyms, and explains why a system split cleanly along
that exact line is structurally fragile rather than merely
inconvenient.