week 3 case study assignment

University of Phoenix Material

Case Study Assignment

Assignment Overview

Prepare a report for the CEO of AcuScan about the situation described in the GEN 480 Critical Thinking Case Study. Your report should include the following two parts:

1. Part One: Respond to the specific questions on the worksheet that follows (100 points possible).

2. Part Two: Write an executive summary for the CEO of AcuScan. (100 points possible).

PART ONE:

Use the case materials to complete this assignment.

Analysis

3. Describe all assumptions seen in any of documents provided in the case study.

For full credit, provide AT MINIMUM: four to six assumptions held by Kelly; six to nine assumptions held by Pat; two to three assumptions held by Cliff; two to three assumptions held by Chris.

a. Kelly

b. Pat

c. Cliff

d. Chris

4. Explain the arguments made by each of these people.

Explanations should comprise two to six sentences for each of the following:

a. Cliff O’Connor

b. Pat Lambert

c. Kelly Thomas

d. Chris Martinas

5. Evaluate each argument listed above as sound or unsound and why. Indicate whether they are emotional or logical in nature.

Evaluations should comprise two to six sentences for each of the following:

a. Cliff O’Connor

b. Pat Lambert

c. Kelly Thomas

d. Chris Martinas

6. Describe specific fallacious arguments, and identify the people who hold them.

For full credit, provide AT MINIMUM four to six fallacious arguments.

Conclusions

7. Describe all problems in this situation.

Describe a minimum of two to three problems that characterize the situation. Single sentence format is acceptable.

8. For each problem listed above, describe the data, arguments, and reasoning that contribute to the problem.

Describe issues of data, arguments, and reasoning-related to each problem within two to six sentences.

9. What is the underlying problem that is the base cause of the conflict within AcuScan?

Present the underlying problem in one to four sentences.

10. What alternative solutions would you propose for this situation?

Present a MIMINUM of two potential solutions in the format of two to four sentences each.

11. State the relative strengths and weaknesses of each alternative solution.

Describe at least one strength and one weakness for each alternative solution.

12. Which solution will you recommend to the CEO and why?

In two to six sentences, fully articulate the exact solution you would propose and the reason(s) for that choice.

PART TWO:

Executive Summary

Write an executive summary of the case for the CEO of AcuScan. The executive summary should give readers the essential contents of the master document(s) in approximately two pages. It should preview the main points of your document, enabling readers to build a mental framework for organizing and understanding the detailed information you are presenting, and helping them determine the key results and recommendations reported in your document. Be sure to include the following:

13. Purpose and scope of document

14. Summary of the situation

15. Key points relating to the situation

16. Conclusions

17. Recommendations and actions to be taken, and why

18. Other supportive information:

a. The executive summary should be 700 to 1,050 words in length.

b. The following rubric will be used to grade the executive summary:

	5	4	3	2	1	0
Content/Development 40%
19. The context and purpose of the writing is clear
20. The situation is concisely summarized
21. Major points and key details are stated
22. Reasoning is logical and supported by specific details/examples
23. Analysis and conclusions are supported by accurate and complete information
24. Clear recommendations are presented for solving the problem(s)
25. Justification for specific recommendations to solve the problem(s) is presented
Organization/Format 20%
26. Structure is well-organized and readable
27. Ideas flow in logical sequence
28. Introduction provides sufficient background on the topic and previews major points
29. Conclusion is logical and clearly stated
30. Paper meets minimum word-count requirements
Grammar 20%
31. No grammar errors are present
32. No punctuation errors are present
33. No spelling errors are present
34. No syntax or semantics errors are present
35. Sentences are complete; no run-ons or fragments
Style 20%
36. Sentences are fluent and well-built
37. Word choice accurately reflects content
38. Concepts are cohesive; paper stands together as a whole