Brisk Essay Writers

Author: admin

  • “Exploring Young-Earth Views through Current Research Articles”

    For this discussion, you will choose from 1 of the many current young-Earth Institute for Creation Research articles based on your interest.
    Follow these steps:
    1. Choose ONE of the current young-Earth articles below in the Discussion: Young-Earth Research Resources below.
    2. Read the article with the following in mind:
    What are the main findings?
    How strongly do these findings support the young-Earth view?  
    3. Compose a thread that includes the following:
    State the article title, web address (url), and author(s).
    Summarize the article’s research method, and findings.
    On a scale of 1-5 assess the article’s significance in its support of a young Earth. Where 1 – weakly supports the young-Earth view . . and 5 strongly supports the young-Earth view. Give a rationale for your rating.
    Write a short concluding sentence or two.
    Articles to choose from:
    https://www.icr.org/article/grand-canyon-exposing-the-flood
    https://www.icr.org/article/oceans-young-earth
    https://www.icr.org/article/yellowstone-national-park-part-1-supervolcano
    https://www.icr.org/article/secular-science-struggles-origin-earths-water
    https://www.icr.org/article/four-geological-evidences-for-a-young-earth

  • Title: “Optimizing Inventory Audits: Finding the Right Balance between Accuracy and Efficiency” Introduction: Inventory management is a critical aspect of any business, as it directly impacts the company’s profitability and customer satisfaction. A key component of inventory management

    I require a paper that outlines the exact numbers of minimum inventory required to be checked in order to be confident of the inventory. I would like this for 2 different scenarios. One is a quick rolling audit check that can be done without shuting down a facility and another longer one where work would be stopped for a certain amount of time. I require formulas to input the number of items at a specifc facility in order to know the minimum number of items to check. Additional I would like 2 or 3 different thresholds. What I mean is I want different levels of confidence in the numbers. I would like one formiula for how businesses normally do rolling inventory checks, and I would like other stricter numbers in case the people in charge want a higher level of security. Please explain the difference in the confidence levels in the paper. 
    The facilities number of items can range from 100 different SKUs to 2,000 different SKUs. I need a paper that shows the level of low count inventory audits but I also need to cover my bases and give an option for higher confidence counts. The supervisors need to be convinced that you don’t need to count 100% of all items in order to have a high confindece that inventory is being accurately kept. Please write the paper as if you are communicating with people with limited business knowledge who think the more you count, the better.
    Please quote established business practice references to estblish credibility.

  • “The Impact of a Clinical Practice Problem on Patients and Organizations: An Evidence-Based Approach to Addressing the Issue” “Evaluating a Clinical Practice Problem Using the JHNEBP Model: A Critical Analysis of a Research-Based Article” “Analyzing Ethical Considerations and Quality Ratings in Research-Based and Non-Research-Based Articles for Evidence-Based Practice” “Applying Evidence-Based Practice: Assessing the Effectiveness of Recommendations for Practice Change” “Mastering the Art of Detail: A Guide to Effective Writing”

    B.  Discuss the impact of a clinical practice problem on the patient or patients and the organization it affects.
    1.  Identify each of the following PICO components of the clinical practice problem:
    •   P: patient, population, or problem
    •   I: intervention
    •   C: comparison
    •   O: outcome
    2.  Develop an evidence-based practice (EBP) question based on the clinical practice problem discussed in part B and the PICO components identified in part B1.
    Note: Refer to the “Appendix B: Question Development Tool” web link for information on the creation of an EBP question.
    C.  Select a research-based article that answers your EBP question from part B2 to conduct an evidence appraisal.
    Note: The article you select should not be more than five years old.
    1.  Discuss the background or introduction (i.e., the purpose) of the research-based article.
    2.  Describe the research methodology used in the research-based article.
    3.  Identify the level of evidence for the research-based article using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice (JHNEBP) model.
    Note: Refer to the “Appendix E: Research Evidence Appraisal Tool” web link for information on how to level a research-based article.
    4.  Summarize how the researcher analyzed the data in the research-based article.
    5.  Summarize the ethical considerations of the research-based article. If none are present, explain why.
    6.  Identify the quality rating of the research-based article according to the JHNEBP model.
    Note: Refer to the “Appendix E: Research Evidence Appraisal Tool” web link for information on how to establish the quality rating.
    7.  Analyze the results or conclusions of the research-based article.
    a.  Explain how the article helps answer your EBP question.
    D.  Select a non-research-based article from a peer-reviewed journal that helps to answer your EBP question from part B2 to conduct an evidence appraisal.
    Note: The article you select should not be more than five years old.
    1.  Discuss the background or introduction (i.e., the purpose) of the non-research-based article.
    2.  Describe the type of evidence (e.g., case study, quality improvement project, clinical practice guideline) used in the non-research-based article.
    3.  Identify the level of evidence in the non-research-based article using the JHNEBP model.
    Note: Refer to the “Appendix F: Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tool” web link for information on how to level the non-research-based article.
    4.  Identify the quality rating of the non-research-based article according to the JHNEBP model.
    5.  Discuss how the author’s recommendations in the non-research-based article help answer your EBP question.
    E.  Recommend a practice change that addresses your EBP question using both the research-based and non-research-based articles you selected for part C and part D.
    1.  Explain how you would involve three key stakeholders in supporting the practice change recommendation.
    2.  Discuss one specific barrier you may encounter when implementing the practice change recommendation. 
    3.  Identify one strategy that could be used to overcome the barrier discussed in part E2.
    4.  Identify one outcome (the O component in PICO) from your EBP question that can be used to measure the recommended practice change.
    F.   Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
    G.  Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
    File Restrictions
    File name may contain only letters, numbers, spaces, and these symbols: ! – _ . * ‘ ( )
    File size limit: 200 MB
    File types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, csv, txt, qt, mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg, wmv, m4v, svg, tif, tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z
    RUBRIC
    A:CITI CERTIFICATION
    NOT EVIDENT
    A copy of the learner’s CITI certification is not provided.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    Not applicable.
    COMPETENT
    A copy of the learner’s CITI certification is provided.
    B:CLINICAL PRACTICE PROBLEM
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not identify a clinical practice problem or does not include a discussion of the impact of a clinical practice problem on the patient or patients and the organization it affects.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission includes a discussion of the clinical practice problem but does not logically address its impact on the patient or patients and the organization it affects.
    COMPETENT
    The submission includes a discussion of the clinical practice problem that logically addresses its impact on the patient or patients and the organization it affects.
    B1:PICO COMPONENTS
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include each of the given PICO components of the clinical practice problem.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission includes each of the PICO components of the clinical practice problem, but 1 or more of the given components are inaccurate or incomplete.
    COMPETENT
    The submission includes each of the given PICO components of the clinical practice problem. Each of the given components is accurate and complete.
    B2:EVIDENCE-BASED QUESTION
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include an EBP question.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission includes an EBP question, but the EBP question does not appropriately address the clinical practice problem or does not include all the PICO components.
    COMPETENT
    The submission includes an EBP question that appropriately addresses the clinical practice problem and includes all the PICO components.
    C:SELECTION OF A RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    An article selection is not provided.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The selected article is not research based or does not answer the EBP question from part B2.
    COMPETENT
    The selected article is research based and answers the EBP question from part B2.
    C1:BACKGROUND OR INTRODUCTION OF THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include a discussion of the background or introduction of the research-based article.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission does not accurately discuss the background or introduction of the research-based article.
    COMPETENT
    The submission accurately discusses the background or introduction of the research-based article.
    C2:RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include a description of the research methodology used in the research-based article.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission includes a description that inaccurately describes the research methodology used in the research-based article.
    COMPETENT
    The submission includes a description that accurately describes the research methodology used in the research-based article.
    C3:LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IN THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not identify the level of evidence for the research-based article.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission identifies the level of evidence for the research-based article that is not accurate according to the JHNEBP model.
    COMPETENT
    The submission accurately identifies the level of evidence for the research-based article that is based on the JHNEBP model.
    C4:ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include a summary of the data analysis in the article.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission includes a summary of the data analysis, but the summary does not accurately describe how the researcher analyzed the data in the article.
    COMPETENT
    The submission includes a summary that accurately describes how the researcher analyzed the data in the article.
    C5:ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include a summary of ethical considerations. Or the submission does not include an explanation of why no ethical considerations are present in the research-based article.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission includes a summary of ethical considerations, but the summary does not logically describe the ethical considerations of the research-based article. Or, if no ethical considerations are present in the research-based article, the submission does not logically explain why none are present.
    COMPETENT
    The submission includes a summary that logically describes the ethical considerations of the research-based article. Or, if no ethical considerations are present, the submission includes a logical explanation of why none are present.
    C6:QUALITY RATING OF THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not identify a quality rating of the research-based article.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission identifies a quality rating of the research-based article that is not accurate according to the JHNEBP model.
    COMPETENT
    The submission accurately identifies a quality rating of the research-based article according to the JHNEBP model.
    C7:RESULTS OR CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include an analysis of the results or conclusions of the research-based article.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission includes an analysis of the results or conclusions, but the analysis does not logically evaluate the results or conclusions of the research-based article.
    COMPETENT
    The submission includes an analysis that logically evaluates the results or conclusions of the research-based article.
    C7A:HOW THE ARTICLE ANSWERS THE EBP QUESTION
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include an explanation of how the article helps answer the EBP question.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission does not appropriately explain how the article helps answer the EBP question.
    COMPETENT
    The submission appropriately explains how the article helps answer the EBP question.
    D:SELECTION OF A NON-RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    An article selection is not provided.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The selected article is not a non-research-based article or does not answer the EBP question from part B2.
    COMPETENT
    The selected article is a non-research-based article and answers the EBP question from part B2.
    D1:BACKGROUND OR INTRODUCTION OF THE NON-BASED-RESEARCH ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include a discussion of the background or introduction of the non-research-based article.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission does not accurately address the background or introduction of the non-research-based article.
    COMPETENT
    The submission accurately addresses the background or introduction of the non-research-based article.
    D2:TYPE OF EVIDENCE IN THE NON-BASED-RESEARCH ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include a description of the type of evidence used in the non-research-based article.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission does not accurately describe the type of evidence used in the non-research-based article.
    COMPETENT
    The submission accurately describes the type of evidence used in the non-research-based article.
    D3:LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IN THE NON-RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not identify the level of evidence for the non-research-based article.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission identifies the level of evidence for the non-research-based article that is not accurate according to the JHNEBP model.
    COMPETENT
    The submission accurately identifies the level of evidence for the non-research-based article according to the JHNEBP model.
    D4:QUALITY RATING OF THE NON-RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not identify a quality rating for the non-research-based article.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission identifies a quality rating for the non-research-based article that is not accurate according to the JHNEBP model.
    COMPETENT
    The submission accurately identifies the quality rating for the non-research-based article according to the JHNEBP model.
    D5:AUTHOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE NON-RESEARCH-BASED ARTICLE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include a discussion of the author’s recommendations that help answer the EBP question.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission includes a discussion of the author’s recommendations, but the discussion does not logically explain how the author’s recommendations help answer the EBP question.
    COMPETENT
    The submission includes a discussion that logically explains how the author’s recommendations help answer the EBP question.
    E:RECOMMENDED PRACTICE CHANGE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include a practice change recommendation.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission includes a practice change recommendation, but the recommendation does not appropriately address the EBP question. Or the recommendation does not accurately use both the research-based and non-research-based articles to show how the change should be made.
    COMPETENT
    The submission includes a practice change recommendation that appropriately addresses the EBP question and accurately uses both the research-based and non-research-based articles to show how the change should be made.
    E1:INVOLVEMENT OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include an explanation of 3 key stakeholders’ involvement in the practice change recommendation.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission includes an explanation of 3 key stakeholders’ involvement, but the explanation does not address how 1 or more of the stakeholders would appropriately support the practice change recommendation.
    COMPETENT
    The submission includes an explanation of how 3 key stakeholders would appropriately support the practice change recommendation.
    E2:BARRIER OF IMPLEMENTING THE PRACTICE CHANGE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include a discussion of 1 specific barrier that might be encountered when implementing the practice change recommendation.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission includes a discussion of 1 specific barrier that might be encountered, but the barrier discussed is not appropriate for the practice change recommendation, or the barrier discussed would not feasibly be encountered during implementation.
    COMPETENT
    The submission includes a discussion of 1 specific barrier that might feasibly be encountered during implementation, and the barrier discussed is appropriate for the practice change recommendation.
    E3:STRATEGY FOR OVERCOMING THE BARRIER
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not identify 1 strategy that could be used to overcome the barrier discussed in part E2.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission identifies 1 strategy for overcoming a barrier, but that strategy would not logically be used to overcome the barrier discussed in part E2.
    COMPETENT
    The submission identifies 1 strategy that could logically be used to overcome the barrier discussed in part E2.
    E4:OUTCOME TO MEASURE THE RECOMMENDED PRACTICE CHANGE
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not identify 1 outcome for measuring the recommended practice change.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission identifies 1 outcome from the EBP question, but the outcome does not appropriately measure the recommended practice change.
    COMPETENT
    The submission identifies 1 outcome from the EBP question that appropriately measures the recommended practice change.
    F:SOURCES
    NOT EVIDENT
    The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations and/or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.
    COMPETENT
    The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are properly quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list that accurately identifies the author, date, title, and source location as available.
    G:PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION
    NOT EVIDENT
    Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.
    APPROACHING COMPETENCE
    Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.
    COMPETENT
    Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding.

  • “Hypothesis Testing for Regional Housing Market” Title: Hypothesis Testing and Confidence Intervals for Regional Home Square Footage

    Competency
    In this project, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following competency:
    Apply statistical techniques to address research problems
    Perform hypothesis testing to address an authentic problem
    Overview
    In this project, you will apply inference methods for means to test your hypotheses about the housing sales market for a region of the United States. You will use appropriate sampling and statistical methods.
    Scenario
    You have been hired by your regional real estate company to determine if your region’s housing prices and housing square footage are significantly different from those of the national market. The regional sales director has three questions that they want to see addressed in the report:
    Are housing prices in your regional market lower than the national market average?
    Is the square footage for homes in your region different than the average square footage for homes in the national market?
    For your region, what is the range of values for the 95% confidence interval of square footage for homes in your market?
    You are given a real estate data set that has houses listed for every county in the United States. In addition, you have been given national statistics and graphs that show the national averages for housing prices and square footage. Your job is to analyze the data, complete the statistical analyses, and provide a report to the regional sales director. You will do so by completing the Project Two Template located in the What to Submit area below.
    Directions
    Introduction
    Region: Start by picking one region from the following list of regions:
    West South Central, West North Central, East South Central, East North Central, Mid Atlantic
    Purpose: What is the purpose of your analysis?
    Sample: Define your sample. Take a random sample of 500 house sales for your region.
    Describe what is included in your sample (i.e., states, region, years or months).
    Questions and type of test: For your selected sample, define two hypothesis questions (see the Scenario above) and the appropriate type of test for each. Address the following for each hypothesis:
    Describe the population parameter for the variable you are analyzing.
    Describe your hypothesis in your own words.
    Identify the hypothesis test you will use (1-Tail or 2-Tail).
    Level of confidence: Discuss how you will use estimation and confidence intervals to help you solve the problem
    1-Tail Test
    Hypothesis: Define your hypothesis.
    Define the population parameter.
    Write null (Ho) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses. Note: For means, define a hypothesis that is less than the population parameter.
    Specify your significance level.
    Data analysis: Summarize your sample data using appropriate graphical displays and summary statistics and confirm assumptions have not been violated to complete this hypothesis test.
    Provide at least one histogram of your sample data.
    In a table, provide summary statistics including sample size, mean, median, and standard deviation. Note: For quartiles 1 and 3, use the quartile function in Excel:
    =QUARTILE([data range], [quartile number])
    Summarize your sample data, describing the center, spread, and shape in comparison to the national information (under Supporting Materials, see the National Summary Statistics and Graphs House Listing Price by Region PDF). Note: For shape, think about the distribution: skewed or symmetric.
    Check the conditions.
    Determine if the normal condition has been met.
    Determine if there are any other conditions that you should check and whether they have been met. Note: Think about the central limit theorem and sampling methods.
    Hypothesis test calculations: Complete hypothesis test calculations.
    Calculate the hypothesis statistics.
    Determine the appropriate test statistic (t). Note: This calculation is (mean – target)/standard error. In this case, the mean is your regional mean, and the target is the national mean.
    Calculate the probability (p value). Note: This calculation is done with the T.DIST function in Excel:
    =T.DIST([test statistic], [degree of freedom], True) The degree of freedom is calculated by subtracting 1 from your sample size.
    Interpretation: Interpret your hypothesis test results using the p value method to reject or not reject the null hypothesis.
    Relate the p value and significance level.
    Make the correct decision (reject or fail to reject).
    Provide a conclusion in the context of your hypothesis.
    2-Tail Test
    Hypotheses: Define your hypothesis.
    Define the population parameter.
    Write null and alternative hypotheses. Note: For means, define a hypothesis that is not equal to the population parameter.
    State your significance level.
    Data analysis: Summarize your sample data using appropriate graphical displays and summary statistics and confirm assumptions have not been violated to complete this hypothesis test.
    Provide at least one histogram of your sample data.
    In a table, provide summary statistics including sample size, mean, median, and standard deviation. Note: For quartiles 1 and 3, use the quartile function in Excel:
    =QUARTILE([data range], [quartile number])
    Summarize your sample data, describing the center, spread, and shape in comparison to the national information. Note: For shape, think about the distribution: skewed or symmetric.
    Check the assumptions.
    Determine if the normal condition has been met.
    Determine if there are any other conditions that should be checked on and whether they have been met. Note: Think about the central limit theorem and sampling methods.
    Hypothesis test calculations: Complete hypothesis test calculations.
    Calculate the hypothesis statistics.
    Determine the appropriate test statistic (t). Note: This calculation is (mean – target)/standard error. In this case, the mean is your regional mean, and the target is the national mean.]
    Determine the probability (p value). Note: This calculation is done with the TDIST.2T function in Excel:
    =T.DIST.2T([test statistic], [degree of freedom]) The degree of freedom is calculated by subtracting 1 from your sample size.
    Interpretation: Interpret your hypothesis test results using the p value method to reject or not reject the null hypothesis.
    Compare the p value and significance level.
    Make the correct decision (reject or fail to reject).
    Provide a conclusion in the context of your hypothesis.
    Comparison of the test results: Revisit Question 3 from the Scenario section: For your region, what is the range of values for the 95% confidence interval of square footage for homes?
    Calculate and report the 95% confidence interval. Show or describe your method of calculation.
    Final Conclusions
    Summarize your findings: In one paragraph, summarize your findings in clear and concise plain language.
    Discuss: Discuss whether you were surprised by the findings. Why or why not?

  • “Integrating Faith and Professionalism: A Synthesis of Core Courses in Business Education”

    Synthesis Paper
    Each student will write a 7-10-page Synthesis Paper due in Unit Six. Only core courses can be covered
    in the synthesis papers. Biblical references and workplace applications are important and should be used
    throughout the synthesis paper. See attached Rubric for requirements. See syllabus Appendis B page 17-18

  • “Resolving an Ethical Dilemma in Health Care: A Case Study Analysis” Introduction In the field of healthcare, professionals often face ethical dilemmas that require difficult decisions to be made. These dilemmas can arise from conflicting values, principles

    For this assessment, develop a solution to a specific ethical dilemma faced by a health care professional. Pick from the 2 case studies provided

  • Title: The Jury Selection Process and the O.J. Simpson Case: A Comparison of Criminal and Civil Law

    Separate each section accordingly. EACH section should have an intro, body, conclusion. Each section needs its own refrerence. 
    Section 1: Describe the method of selecting a jury and provide your opinion as to whether the system is adequate and fair.
    Section 2: Discuss why was O.J. Simpson found “not guilty” of the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman, but found liable for the wrongful death of these two individuals? (Hint: compare elements of crimes vs. torts.)

  • “The History of Beekeeping: Insights from Archaeological Evidence”

    I have attached the Guideline and outline.
    Please eusure that the same topic and outline are used.
    This is for an Archeology class so must focus on using archaeological evidence.
    Have to use two main sources
    1.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358672712_Palynological_Insights_into_the_Ecology_and_Economy_of_Ancient_Bee-Products_A_Contribution_to_the_History_of_Beekeeping
    2. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0407921102
    Archaeological evidence from this sources should be utilized, but other sources can be used for historical context.
    IMPORTANT: please do not use any AI tool or fix AI’s sentence to avoid AI detector tool. My professor uses sophisticated detection methods.

  • Title: The Impact of Civil Rights on Police Reform: A Cause-and-Effect Analysis of the George Floyd Protests

    Current political events should be chosen from a reputable and neutral news source such as the Associated Press (AP), Reuters, NPR, PBS, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ABC, Wichita Eagle, or The Sunflower. If you have a question about what constitutes a reputable and neutral news source check this website or send me an email (Note: local news sources are generally considered reputable and neutral).
    You must identify a current event related to the topic for the week.
    Week 3: Civil Rights or Civil Liberties
    Each memo should be a cause-and-effect analysis. In other words, the current event you choose should be the outcome (or effect) of the week’s topic, or vice versa. In the attached example, trust in government (a concept examined in Week 1) is discussed in the context of voter registration. The argument presented is that difficulties in voter registration caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has further eroded citizens’ trust in government and is detrimental to representative democracy.
    Each memo should be 250-300 words and posted in the designated discussion board. You must provide a citation for the news source you choose, but citing the course material is not necessary.
    A couple of tips:
    Be creative. This is an opportunity for you to show that you understand the course material, so feel free to have some fun with it.
    Make direct connections. Be explicit about why the event you choose is related to the week’s topic.
    Keep events current. Events are not current if they are more than 30 days old.
    Choose a current event you care about. Your writing will always be better if you have a personal connection to the topic.
    View the example attached above.

  • Title: Surviving the Storm: My Personal Narrative on Covid-19 Introduction: The world was plunged into a state of chaos, like a ship caught in a raging storm. The winds of uncertainty and fear were blowing fiercely, and the waves

    Personal Narrative on Covid-19 must have 2
    Similes or Metaphores.  Introduction with a
    grabber. Three point thesis 1 Sentence.  3 body paragraphs and Concluding paragraph. 
    Rubric guide line attached