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
Range
threshold: pts
7.0 to >0.0 pts
Assignment submitted by due date
_1534
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
Range
threshold: pts
20.0 to >15.0 pts
Type of argument correctly identified for all 4 exercises.
_8707
15.0 to >10.0 pts
Type of argument correctly identified for 3 exercises.
_2731
10.0 to >5.0 pts
Type of argument correctly identified for 2 exercises.
_4218
5.0 to >0.0 pts
Type of argument correctly identified 1 exercise.
_5474
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
Range
threshold: pts
12.0 to >9.0 pts
Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for all 4 exercises.
_9580
9.0 to >6.0 pts
Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 3 exercises.
_5494
6.0 to >3.0 pts
Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 2 exercises.
_4931
3.0 to >0.0 pts
Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 1 exercise.
_3572
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
Range
threshold: pts
12.0 to >9.0 pts
Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for all 4 exercises.
_472
9.0 to >6.0 pts
Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 3 exercises.
_1684
6.0 to >3.0 pts
Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 2 exercises.
_7240
3.0 to >0.0 pts
Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 1 exercise.
_6233
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
Range
threshold: pts
12.0 to >9.0 pts
Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for all 4 exercises.
_8473
9.0 to >6.0 pts
Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 3 exercises.
_8677
6.0 to >3.0 pts
Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 2 exercises.
_4065
3.0 to >0.0 pts
Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 1 exercises.
_9267
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
Range
threshold: pts
12.0 to >9.0 pts
Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for all 4 exercises.
_534
9.0 to >6.0 pts
Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 3 exercises.
_1983
6.0 to >3.0 pts
Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 2 exercises.
_448
3.0 to >0.0 pts
Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 1 exercises.
_5632
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
Range
threshold: 5 pts
5to >0 pts
Full Marks
blank
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
Files: Exercises.docx
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
Range
threshold: pts
7.0 to >0.0 pts
Assignment submitted by due date
_1534
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
Range
threshold: pts
20.0 to >15.0 pts
Type of argument correctly identified for all 4 exercises.
_8707
15.0 to >10.0 pts
Type of argument correctly identified for 3 exercises.
_2731
10.0 to >5.0 pts
Type of argument correctly identified for 2 exercises.
_4218
5.0 to >0.0 pts
Type of argument correctly identified 1 exercise.
_5474
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
Range
threshold: pts
12.0 to >9.0 pts
Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for all 4 exercises.
_9580
9.0 to >6.0 pts
Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 3 exercises.
_5494
6.0 to >3.0 pts
Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 2 exercises.
_4931
3.0 to >0.0 pts
Evaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 1 exercise.
_3572
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
Range
threshold: pts
12.0 to >9.0 pts
Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for all 4 exercises.
_472
9.0 to >6.0 pts
Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 3 exercises.
_1684
6.0 to >3.0 pts
Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 2 exercises.
_7240
3.0 to >0.0 pts
Provides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 1 exercise.
_6233
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
Range
threshold: pts
12.0 to >9.0 pts
Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for all 4 exercises.
_8473
9.0 to >6.0 pts
Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 3 exercises.
_8677
6.0 to >3.0 pts
Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 2 exercises.
_4065
3.0 to >0.0 pts
Forms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 1 exercises.
_9267
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
Range
threshold: pts
12.0 to >9.0 pts
Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for all 4 exercises.
_534
9.0 to >6.0 pts
Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 3 exercises.
_1983
6.0 to >3.0 pts
Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 2 exercises.
_448
3.0 to >0.0 pts
Full discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 1 exercises.
_5632
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
Range
threshold: 5 pts
5to >0 pts
Full Marks
blank
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