IntroductionThe Cold War brought about an irrational fear of communism and communist activities in the United States. As we are learning this week, one of the most vocal instigators of this paranoia was Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy delivered a speech about the imminent threat of communism on February 9, 1950. Our country again experienced a state of paranoia after the attacks of September 11, 2001, this time of Islam. (The purpose of this assignment is not to defend communism, but to examine the fear surrounding communism and Islam and whether it was/is valid.)

Instructions

Perform a search on the internet and locate and read Joseph McCarthy’s speech given in Wheeling, West Virginia on February 9, 1950. Copy and paste the following keywords into your Google search bar: “Joseph McCarthy, Wheeling, West Virginia.” The speech is also referred to as “Enemies from Within.”

Construct the case study by responding to the following prompts:

How does Senator Joseph McCarthy define communist nations and what are the threats they pose?

• Assess if Senator Joseph McCarthy charges were accurate?
• Replace the word communism in his speech with Islam. Analyze if there similarities between what McCarthy said about communism and what has been said about Islam, particularly shortly after the attacks of 9/11?
• Do you believe it is valid to draw comparisons between anti-communist rhetoric and anti-Islam rhetoric?

Make sure to cite and reference sources. Make sure that the writing is clear, well-developed, and free from spelling and grammatical errors. Please note that part of your grade is to include a documented example of the primary source.

Writing Requirements (APA format)

• Length: 3 pages (not including title page or references page)
• 1-inch margins
• Double spaced
• 12-point Times New Roman font
• Title page
• References page
• Use in-text citations that correspond with your end reference

Textbook:  Keene, C. & O’Donnell (2012). Visions of America: A History of the United States (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

IntroductionThe first two steps in evidence-based practice are to identify knowledge gaps and formulate relevant questions. In this writing exercise, you will be doing just that, across three types of inductive reasoning. In addition, you will be applying evaluation techniques to determine how credible, authoritative, and reliable the arguments are.

ScenarioImagine your boss has asked you to evaluate four ideas that she is thinking of using to implement programs. You must evaluate whether these are good ideas that she can safely and immediately green-light or whether further evidence is needed. She is anxious to move forward, so she will be unhappy if you reject a good idea; however, if you approve a bad idea, she will be equally as unhappy. She has specifically directed you not to do any outside research. You must evaluate the ideas strictly on the brief passages available. She also wants to know what specific kind of reasoning is used in each passage

InstructionsUsing everything you have learned from the text, as well as any other information you have gathered from your searches related to this week’s discussion, evaluate the following four arguments:  (SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT)

• Chapter 8 Exercise 8.9 Examples 7 and 10
• Chapter 9 Exercise 9.9 Example 1
• Chapter 10 Exercise 10.9 Example 1

For each exercise, address the following:

• Identify the type of inductive argument and any features of the way the argument is constructed that you find relevant.
• Explain how convincing you think the argument is.
• Does it have sufficient evidence to allow you to suggest that she move forward with the idea or does the argument have knowledge gaps?
• What questions need to be answered to close these gaps?
• Does the argument contain any information that adds to its authority, credibility, or reliability?

You need to show your boss that you know what factors have to be considered in evaluating each type of argument and how well the argument meets the criteria.

Writing Requirements (APA format)

• Length: 100-150 words per exercise (not including title page or references page)
• 1-inch margins
• Double spaced
• 12-point Times New Roman font
• Title page
• References page

GradingThis activity will be graded using the Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric.

Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric – 75 pts

You’ve already rated students with this rubric. Any major changes could affect their assessment results.

Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric – 75 pts

CriteriaRatingsPts

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTimeliness of Submission _6150

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

7.0 to >0.0 pts

Assignment submitted by due date

_1534

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

Assignment not submitted by due date

_7251

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

  / 7.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExercise Identification _8559

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

20.0 to >15.0 pts

Type of argument correctly identified for all 4 exercises.

_8707

Edit ratingDelete rating

15.0 to >10.0 pts

Type of argument correctly identified for 3 exercises.

_2731

Edit ratingDelete rating

10.0 to >5.0 pts

Type of argument correctly identified for 2 exercises.

_4218

Edit ratingDelete rating

5.0 to >0.0 pts

Type of argument correctly identified 1 exercise.

_5474

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

None are correct, fully developed, or present.

_3401

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

  / 20.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvaluation of Criteria _4675

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

12.0 to >9.0 pts

Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for all 4 exercises.

_9580

Edit ratingDelete rating

9.0 to >6.0 pts

Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 3 exercises.

_5494

Edit ratingDelete rating

6.0 to >3.0 pts

Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 2 exercises.

_4931

Edit ratingDelete rating

3.0 to >0.0 pts

Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 1 exercise.

_3572

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

None are correct, fully developed, or present.

_1305

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

  / 12.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeValue of Evidence _8912

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

12.0 to >9.0 pts

Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for all 4 exercises.

_472

Edit ratingDelete rating

9.0 to >6.0 pts

Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 3 exercises.

_1684

Edit ratingDelete rating

6.0 to >3.0 pts

Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 2 exercises.

_7240

Edit ratingDelete rating

3.0 to >0.0 pts

Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 1 exercise.

_6233

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

None are correct, fully developed, or present.

_6466

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

  / 12.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuestions _4233

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

12.0 to >9.0 pts

Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for all 4 exercises.

_8473

Edit ratingDelete rating

9.0 to >6.0 pts

Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 3 exercises.

_8677

Edit ratingDelete rating

6.0 to >3.0 pts

Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 2 exercises.

_4065

Edit ratingDelete rating

3.0 to >0.0 pts

Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 1 exercises.

_9267

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

None are correct, fully developed, or present.

_5660

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

  / 12.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAuthority, Credibility, Reliability _7600

view longer description

Range

threshold: pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

12.0 to >9.0 pts

Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for all 4 exercises.

_534

Edit ratingDelete rating

9.0 to >6.0 pts

Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 3 exercises.

_1983

Edit ratingDelete rating

6.0 to >3.0 pts

Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 2 exercises.

_448

Edit ratingDelete rating

3.0 to >0.0 pts

Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 1 exercises.

_5632

Edit ratingDelete rating

0.0 to >0 pts

None are correct, fully developed, or present.

_685

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

  / 12.0 pts

—

Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescription of criterion

view longer description

Range

threshold: 5 pts

Edit ratingDelete rating

5to >0 pts

Full Marks

blank

Edit ratingDelete rating

0to >0 pts

No Marks

blank_2

This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.

pts

  / 5 pts

—

Total Points: 75.0

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Introduction

This assignment fulfills

• Module Outcome 2: You will have outlined the planning process.
• Course Outcome 5: You will have described the role of the director as it relates to budgeting, staffing, and policy making.
• General Education Competency: Communicated effectively using the conventions of American Standard English in professional and academic environments.

The Writing Assignment

Develop/provide personnel policies that cover these 9 topics.

The topics are hiring procedures, employee performance reviews, employee benefits, grounds for disciplinary action/dismissal, continuing professional development, overtime policy, code of conduct, dress and appearance, curriculum.

Grading Criteria

A student would be successful if the personnel policies cover in appropriate detail at least nine items typical for personnel policies of a child care programs.

10 points per personnel policy with the explanation’s in appropriate details.

10 points – correct grammar and spelling are used.

This assignment is 100 points.

This assignment is due February 3, 2019.

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Introduction

• Topic area
• Research question
• Significance

Assignment details:

Topic Area: Begin by stating the type of facility in which, or about which, the research will focus [for example: hospital, physicians’ office, urgent care center, etc.]

Then, follow with a strong introduction that will share a brief overview that will inform the reader about the specific topic on which the research will focus. This section should also include a brief explanation of why the results are expected to be relevant to the facility, and its ability to be effective and efficient.  

Research Question: Once the topic area is established, repeat and elaborate on what you wrote about your research question in week one’s assignment. What specific issue or question will your work investigate? What can be learned from this research project?

Significance: Why is this study, and its statistically significant results, important to this facility and its ability to provide quality health care services? Explain why it will be beneficial to answer this question with facts. What are the implications of completing this study? How might these facts [statistically significant results] affect the policies and procedures of this facility? This section should also include why the reader should find value in the completion of the project.

Submit your original work on a Microsoft Word document. Estimated length: two-to-three pages

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Introduction

You should consider the discussion threads as being analogous to the  kind of discussions you would have in a face-to-face class: our goals  should be to say things that are interesting, provocative, and  respectful. Since this is a classroom setting, you are encouraged to  proofread, and to avoid the more slang- and emoticon-fueled discourse  that appears on Twitter and Facebook. One of the goals here is  professional preparation; if you would not say or do something in the  workplace, then you should not post similar material in a discussion  thread. You can post more than twice to the postings of your peers; the  two longest postings are the ones that will be evaluated.

Where possible, the threads will cover supplemental material  incorporated into each chapter, via videos related to the supporting  discussion integrated into your textbook chapters. Postings should not  merely summarize the material, but should deal with how to apply the  material in practice.

Directions

The posting should consist of no less than 250 words and should  incorporate at least one outside, i.e., from a library database search,  APA formatted reference at the end of the post. After posting your  answers, begin making two (2) or more replies to other students’ posts.  Your responses should ask a pertinent question, contribute significantly  to your classmate’s posting and foster further discussion in order to  receive the full points per response (up to 2 responses). Response  postings have the same requirements for length and outside references as  original postings. To make a knowledgeable posting, it would be a good  idea to review the supplemental material before writing your response.

Review the grading rubric before beginning this assignment.

Questions

INDICATE, BY NUMBER, WHICH QUESTION YOU ARE RESPONDING TO WHEN MAKING YOUR POSTS.

1. Managing change in practice 9.1 – Jo North: Start with the end in mind 
2. What is the current state of planning in your organization? How can it be improved? 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"