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

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