Some International Relations scholars suggest four levels of analysis: the individual level, the domestic level (the state), then the interstate level, and following that, the global level (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2013, 16). Here we will consider the three major analytical levels.

1. The first level (the individual) attempts to highlight and understand how persons and their characteristics (alone or in groups) impact policy (part of the decision-making process). Individual level analysis is further broken down into factors that affect policy: cognitive, emotional, and psychological ones. Biological factors may also matter. Gender is another biopolitical facet. Finally, individual and group perceptions are very important. If a person is part of a group, other influences can come into play, such as “groupthink” and roles. Analyzing the characteristics of individual leaders is another approach to individual-level analysis. This is idiosyncratic analysis: how did an individual’s personal traits influence or shape his or her decisions? This can be very important because an individual’s characteristics “are crucial to the intentions, capabilities and strategies of a state” (Byman and Pollack, 2001, 111, in Rourke, 2008, 73-74). Many other politically relevant concepts enter into idiosyncratic individual analyses: personality, physical and mental health, ego and ambition, one’s political history and personal experiences, perceptions, and operational reality (this includes leaders’ worldviews). Leaders have formal and informal powers, and each has his or her own leadership capabilities -- a group of characteristics relevant to a chief executive’s authority (Rourke, 2008, 76 and 82).
2. Analysis at the state level explores how the structure and operations of a government affect decisions and policies. The type of government matters (the continuum from liberal democracy to authoritarian state), as does the kind of situations the state faces (crisis versus non-crisis), the kinds of policies under consideration, and the impact the policies could have domestically and on interstate or international relations. How the bureaucracies (career political personnel and their offices) function can be significant. One cannot ignore the influences of interest groups and legislatures, either. How interested the public is in international affairs can make a difference, too, along with how public opinion is aligned to policies. It is important to remember, especially in relation to a state’s foreign policy, that it often reflects its political culture. Henry Kissinger explained American political culture in the following words: “Washington is like a Roman arena [in which] gladiators do battle” (Kissinger, 1982, 421). Other political cultures may be quite different, Asian state cultures, for example.
3. The last level of analysis, the system-level, is focused on the external conditions and pressures that shape a country’s practices and policies (Rourke, 2008, 65). There are specific structural characteristics that are included in system-level analysis: what is the organization of authority? Is the international system anarchical or hierarchical? Further: Is it:

• Unipolar (with only one state as most powerful),
• bipolar (two great powers), or
• multipolar?   Additionally, is there a hegemon? Are there international organizations to which some states  belong? Are there wars or conflicts going on?

As also understood from the information given, all of the statements in the options with regard to the levels of analysis in International Relations are correct, so the correct answer is E.