The first two steps in evidence-based practice are to identify knowledge gaps and formulate relevant questions.

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

• Textbook: Chapter 8, 9, 10
• Lesson

Introduction
The 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.

Scenario
Imagine 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

Instructions
Using 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:

• 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

Grading
This activity will be graded using the Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric.

Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 5

Due Date: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday 

Rubric

Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric – 75 ptsArgument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric – 75 ptsCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTimeliness of Submission7.0 ptsAssignment submitted by due date0.0 ptsAssignment not submitted by due date7.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExercise Identification20.0 ptsType of argument correctly identified for all 4 exercises.15.0 ptsType of argument correctly identified for 3 exercises.10.0 ptsType of argument correctly identified for 2 exercises.5.0 ptsType of argument correctly identified 1 exercise.0.0 ptsNone are correct, fully developed, or present.20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvaluation of Criteria12.0 ptsEvaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for all 4 exercises.9.0 ptsEvaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 3 exercises.6.0 ptsEvaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 2 exercises.3.0 ptsEvaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 1 exercise.0.0 ptsNone are correct, fully developed, or present.12.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeValue of Evidence12.0 ptsProvides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for all 4 exercises.9.0 ptsProvides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 3 exercises.6.0 ptsProvides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 2 exercises.3.0 ptsProvides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 1 exercise.0.0 ptsNone are correct, fully developed, or present.12.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuestions12.0 ptsForms pertinent question to fill information gaps for all 4 exercises.9.0 ptsForms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 3 exercises.6.0 ptsForms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 2 exercises.3.0 ptsForms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 1 exercises.0.0 ptsNone are correct, fully developed, or present.12.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAuthority, Credibility, Reliability12.0 ptsFull discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for all 4 exercises.9.0 ptsFull discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 3 exercises.6.0 ptsFull discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 2 exercises.3.0 ptsFull discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 1 exercises.0.0 ptsNone are correct, fully developed, or present.12.0 pts
Total Points: 75.0PreviousNext