This Is A Continuation Of The First And Second Assignments
This Is A Continuation Of The First And Second Assignments And Uses Yo
This is a continuation of the first and second assignments and uses your accumulated research. Imagine you are two different lobbyists, supporting two different sides of the policy issue you wrote about in the Week 6 assignment, Analyzing Policy. Submit your revisions from the Week 3 assignment, Historical Perspective, and the Week 6 assignment, Analyzing Policy based on your professor's feedback. You will be graded on your revisions. Then, write a 4-5 page paper in which you: Write a one-page position in favor of the policy. Write a one-page position against the policy. Write a one-page response to the argument in favor of the policy. Write a one-page response to the argument against the policy. Use at least two of the following arguments from Chapter 10 in your paper: normative, positive, anecdote, and evidence arguments. Clearly label each to receive credit. Include at least four peer-reviewed references (no more than five years old) from material outside the textbook. Note : Appropriate peer-reviewed references include scholarly articles and governmental websites. Wikipedia, other wikis, and any other websites ending in anything other than ".gov" do not qualify as peer-reviewed. Use Basic Search: Strayer University Online Library to identify references. Note: The revisions from the Week 3 assignment, Historical Perspective, and the Week 6 assignment, Analyzing Policy, must flow together with this assignment as one seamless paper.
Paper For Above instruction
The assigned task involves creating a comprehensive analysis and argumentation on a specific policy issue, integrating perspectives from both supportive and opposing viewpoints, augmented by scholarly research and critical argumentation techniques. This paper builds on prior assignments—namely, the Historical Perspective and Policy Analysis—to develop a cohesive, well-reasoned debate from two different fictitious lobbyists' perspectives, supported by academic evidence and strategic argumentation.
First, the paper presents a one-page position advocating for the policy, highlighting its benefits, societal impact, or normative justification. Conversely, the opposing stance is also documented in a one-page position, emphasizing potential drawbacks or policy failures. Following these, the paper includes a one-page response to each of these positions, critically analyzing and challenging the arguments presented, reinforcing the debate with evidence-based reasoning and argumentation styles—normative, positive, anecdotal, or evidence-based—as specified in Chapter 10 of the course materials.
In constructing these arguments, it is essential to draw upon at least four peer-reviewed sources published within the last five years, ensuring that references are credible and scholarly. These sources should provide empirical data, theoretical frameworks, or policy analyses that support or refute the positions articulated. Governmental websites and reputable scholarly journals serve as ideal sources, whereas non-peer-reviewed sites like Wikipedia or commercial websites should be avoided.
The integration of revisions from previous assignments ensures continuity and depth in the analysis, demonstrating the evolution of understanding and refinement of positions based on instructor feedback. The final product must be cohesive, flowing seamlessly from historical context through policy analysis to the debating arguments, culminating in a structured, academically rigorous paper exceeding four pages in length.
References
- Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (2022). Title of the scholarly article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages.
- Author, C. C. (2021). Analysis of policy impacts. Policy Studies Journal, 45(3), 123-135.
- Government Agency. (2020). Policy report on [Policy Issue]. Government publication repository.
- Author, D. D., & Author, E. E. (2019). Evidence-based approaches to policy formulation. Public Administration Review, 79(4), 567-576.
- Additional peer-reviewed references as appropriate.