A‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍rgumentative Essay In the Week 3 Assignment, you engaged in a case analysis of a current business problem using some of the components of an argumentative essay. In this written assignment, you will write a complete argumentative essay as described in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Foster, Hardy, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). This essay will include a revised and polished version of your Week 3 Assignment, an objection to your thesis, a rebuttal, and concluding remarks. In order to benefit the most, you should start working on your Final Project from the time you receive your Week 3 Assignment back with comments from your professor. Your assignment should include the following: A revision of your Week 3 Case Analysis Assignment. Your revision should represent a substantial edit of your work that fully incorporates feedback from your professor and goes well beyond correcting any grammatical or APA errors. The strongest possible objection to your thesis. After the final paragraph of your Week 3 Case Analysis Assignment, start a new paragraph that introduces the strongest possible objection to your thesis. The considerations for this are detailed in Section of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). Make sure to employ the appropriate language to introduce the objection, such as “some may object to my thesis as follows” or “according to [so and so] the thesis presented here fails to account for X” [whatever he or she finds problematic]. You can find other language to do this, of course, but the key point here is to make sure that you indicate that someone else is speaking when presenting this objection. It is also important to remember that you do research to discover good objections and not merely objections that are weak and thus easily rebutted. Look for peer-reviewed journal articles in the University of Arizona Global Campus Library, full-text articles in Google Scholar, or articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Present the opposing position fairly and in detail. This may take more than one paragraph. A rebuttal. This is a refutation of the objection that you have just presented. Start this in a new paragraph following the objection paragraph(s). Once again, follow the indications of Section of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). You may point out an error in the objection. Or you may show that, while it is an important objection, it does not apply squarely to your argument, or does not account for facts that make it irrelevant. Above all, make sure to maintain philosophical decorum in your rebuttal. Toward this end, you should apply the principles of charity and of accuracy, first introduced in the Week 1 course material. See “Confronting Disagreement” in Section of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). Closing remarks. End your argumentative essay with a paragraph of closing remarks. Provide some reflections of what you have attempted to achieve by means of your essay. You could, for example, explain how your essay sheds light on the broader controversy that it addresses. Or you could point out how your essay addresses a frequently ignored point or the unpopular side in the controversy. You could also reflect on the related matters in the broader controversy that would be useful to examine by others. Do not merely summarize what you have done in the body of your essay, and do not add new information here that would support or contradict your essay since the body of your essay should have addressed all the relevant points. See “Closing Your Essay” in Section of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo (2015). Requirements for your Assignment: • Your assignment should be between 1500 to 1700 words in length, excluding the cover and references pages. • Your examination should be both thorough and succinct. This is a combination that demands time and thought, so give yourself sufficient time to draft and revise. • Your assignment should include citations, as well as a list of references. Both must be in APA form. • Your references should include at least four peer-reviewed articles in addition to those that you will be carrying over from our Week 3 Case Analysis Assignment. These references should be drawn from the University of Arizona Global Campus Library, Google Scholar, or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Here is my revision three assignment. The major moral problem in the Gender Discrimination (Good Year) case regarding Lilly Ledbetter is the unfairness and limitation of filing a discrimination case in a timely fashion. Ms. Ledbetter is a woman who worked as a supervi‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍sor for Good Year for nearly 19 years. It was brought to her attention discreetly she was making a lot less than her male colleagues although doing the same exact work. When Ledbetter learned about this discrepancy in her pay, she filed a claim with the EECO, (Equal, Employment, Opportunity, and Commission). When Ledbetter’s case was presented in the Supreme court it was noted by the court she waited too long, and her case was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Ledbetter should have filed within 180 days. However, Ledbetter had no knowledge she had to file at a certain period. This allowed Good year to have the upper hand in justifying that Ledbetter was delayed in filing her discrimination lawsuit and Goodyear was not obligated to pay any back pay due to what the court had stated, and they would stand by the court statement. However, Ledbetter was able to have a trial and the court did see she was wrongly treated unfair regarding her compensation for nearly 20 years. The jury awarded Ledbetter . million in punitive damages. The law, in this case, states a plaintiff has 180 days to file a claim with the EEOC in compliance with Title VII of limitation. Ledbetter should have filed the discrimination lawsuit once she learned about her unequal pay and should not have waited until a few years to act on this matter. This situation gave Goodyear to have a valid reason based on the court finding the fact Ms. Ledbetter waited so long Goodyear was not obligated to pay her back pay. This matter applied to capitalism. Goodyear had a stronghold on this matter but failed to do the right thing by Ms. Ledbetter. In my paper I will support Ledbetter case on women discrimination and the limitation on laws that the average person would not have any common knowledge if they are not familiar with the laws and when they should file a lawsuit like in Ms. Ledbetter case. In addition, the ethical theory I would apply to the Ledbetter case is Deontology. Kant’s Deontology moral good is treating a person with respect and without denying them dignity or autonomy. It’s pretty apparent Goodyear was 100% wrong on how they dealt with the Ledbetter case. They unlawfully underpaid Ms. Ledbetter for almost 2 decades and yet failed to do right by Ledbetter until the court favor her discrimination case and order Good year to pay her. After examining the law that affects the operations of the business is the discrimination of women not being paid equally fair pay like their male counterparts. In support of Ms. Ledbetter women, The Department of Labor has state during the past 3 decades women has climb up in the workplace favoring women in leadership roles, paying equity and other benefits that their male counterpart would receive are now being offered for women. This shows Ms. Ledbetter case is not something that just occurred. Equity and equal pay for women is something that has been in talks for many years but has not made it to the level we see it has become. Because of Ms. Ledbetter took action it opened the eyes of many to further look into the rights for women in the workplace. Despite the unequal pay women continue to have the wage gap when doing the same kind of work. Also, as I look further in this case Capitalism is a key factor as well. Goodyear in my opinion saved money on their end by profiting more than taking accountability by being fair when it comes to men and women compensation. Men are paid more as women are paid less for the same exact role as men. According to the Title VII’s Protection Against Discrimination Ledbetter should of file her discrimination laws within the 180 days and possible the outcome may have turned out differently for Ms. Ledbetter. The theory Deontology is what happened in the Ledbetter case. Good year did not to do right by Ms. Ledbetter but instead felt she acted too late and felt there was no reason to compensate Ms. Ledbetter. However, after a few more hearing and testimony Ms. Ledbetter won her case. Her case made national news to warn other employers to take note and to ensure women in their place of work is being treated fair by compensating them the salary they rightly deserve. The other reason in my support is in the time we live in a world where women are elevating and exceeding in the workplace. It is our responsibility as a country and nation to recognize that women are getting education more then ever before. Women are taking over the board rooms when it comes to making decisions. In Ms. Ledbetter case she was the only women in her division that held a high supervisor role. When you think about it at that time there were very few women in leadership when Ms. Ledbetter was working Goodyear. Ms. Ledbetter has shade light to a problem woman faced for so many long now. Because of the Ledbetter case Laws like the Ledbetter Act is now in place to enforce equal pay for women who are doing the ‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍same job as their male counter parts.