You are the department director for the Oncology Division. John Cifuentes, nurse manager for the Oncology Unit, 7 South, reports directly to you. Review the Age Discrimination Case Study (https://lmscontent.embanet.com/Media/RC/HP602/HP602-w05-m01/) and respond to the following case study questions from the perspective of the department director.
In 2006, longtime Maryland State Senator Ida Ruben was challenged in her pursuit of the Democratic nomination for the Maryland State Senate in the Democratic primary by Jamie Raskin, a political activist and lawyer. Ida and Jamie represented two different generations of Maryland residents and lived in two different adjoining counties. It was a hardfought and sometimes tempestuous battle for the nomination which Jamie eventually won. And, in this overwhelmingly Democratic district, winning the Democratic Party nomination virtually assures victory in the general election. And that’s what happened. So this battle was what really mattered in winning this particular seat.
Find attached the mail materials from both the Ruben and Raskin campaigns.
Please review them and write an analysis of what you see from each campaign, focusing specifically (but not necessarily solely) on the following questions:
What is Ruben’s message as an incumbent seeking renomination as evidenced by her materials?
Does she do an adequate job of presenting her narrative and theme in the context of her mail pieces?
Does her slogan derive from the narrative and theme? Does it work?
How do the visuals (colors, photos, drawings, typeface choices) add or detract from her message(s)?
What is Raskin’s message?
Are his narrative and theme clear? Does his slogan reflect his narrative and theme?
What about Raskin’s visuals? Do they add or detract from his message(s)?
There is, in the middle of the campaign, a battle over allegations made about Ruben’s responsiveness to constituents and Raskin’s status as a “real Democrat.” Pick out the pieces that were mailed in conjunction with that battle for control of the message. Assess each candidate’s approach and level of sophistication and success in raising and responding to negative allegations.
My professor gave me feedback that my literature review paper was very biased and lacked objectivity.
This is what she said “It is strongly written, although there is a bit of a bias tone to it since there is no dissenting viewpoint provided or alternative.”
“This is a really good start, but still needs some work. Make sure your language shows no bias about the program, but only offers it as a possible solution that you are going to test for intervention to a problem. If you make it sound like this is already proven, there is no need to do any further research. Please see the comments I put on your paper, and let me know if you have questions.”
Without changing the content/citations/essence/formatting of the paper, please re-write the portions that are biased towards Reading Racetrack as an intervention measure to improve sight-word recognition.
CONTENT GUIDELINES:
Each misinformation response should include the following:
1. Source of Misinformation: On a separate page, include a screenshot or description of your chosen misinformation (with working link). ( Im already finish this part in the attached file below)
Start your essay from here.
2. Introduction: The author will identify the specific claims from their misinformation that they will be addressing. They will also detail why it is important to correct this misinformation. Why is this important/worth addressing? Consider providing a bit of historical/statistical, or background information so that a reader with little information on your topic begins to understand its relevance.
3. Search Details: Briefly (in no more than 2-3 sentences) address how and where you searched for information. How many useful articles did you find on your topic? What populations did they study? How many countries were represented in the articles you found?
4. Body: Explore your topic by misinformation claim or research question. There are many ways to order this section, but I should see evidence that an analysis of the literature has been used to support the statements made, and that the assumptions/conclusions are logical.
a. Presentation of evidence:
i. Integration: If sources contradict one another they are dealt with adequately. Multiple sources are compared if available. A simple listing of information is avoided.
ii. The points are internally consistent, (i.e. one point follows from another), plausible and well supported.
iii. References are recent, high quality, and appropriate to the paper topic (research articles, edited books, and some government/organization sources).
iv. Suitability of focus: The problem chosen is focused enough to be covered in the space of the paper, but not too narrow.
v. Organization: Presentation is easy to follow and well organized.
5. Discussion: Acknowledgement of any limitations of the findings are discussed. Also address any uncertainties in the information environment that impact(ed) your knowledge on/ability to address this topic (lack of research, biased data, currency of evidence, etc.). Were there any claims made in your misinformation source that you could not debunk? Why was that?
6. Conclusion: The author summarizes the findings adequately and draws appropriate conclusions. Author identifies future areas of research, and recommended sources readers should explore to find more information on this topic.
7. References: On a separate page, include references for all sources used in your paper. All references must be in APA format.
We are experienced and have access to ample research materials to guarantee quality A+ papers. Our Professional Writers can handle all subjects and deliver your papers on time.
For any questions, feedback, or comments, we have an ethical customer support team that is always waiting on the line for your inquiries.
Send us an E-mail: support@homeworkhandlers.com or Call us: +1 (518)-934-6741
