What is the quality of the evidence offered?

Andrew Castillo
FINAL PAPER
Dear class,

I know this has been a hard time for us all. Some of you may have struggled with online learning, with learning from home, or with even just focusing while the world feels like it is burning down. I hope you will be able to use the skills we have reviewed together to parse the news in the months and years to come, to clearly evaluate what you are told, to consider every statement from both sides critically, and teach others to do the same.

Today, I want to talk to you about your final paper for our class. I am asking for a paper of between 1,000 and 2,000 words evaluating the argument from a work of your choosing from among three options. That is a minimum of 1,000 words and I am not looking for filler. I know filler when I see it.

ALL SUBMISSIONS MUST BE SENT TO ME THROUGH OUTLOOK.

THIS ASSIGNMENT IS DUE BY OUR FINAL CLASS. NO PAPERS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER 12/20/2021

Consider discussing some or all of the following:

What is the author’s conclusion?
What are his reasons?
What evidence does she offer?
What are their assumptions?
What fallacies do you see in their reasoning? (naming them is helpful.)
What is the quality of the evidence offered?
Do they present both sides of the issue? If not, what might the other side be?
Can you find any problems with the reasoning?
How could they have provided a stronger argument?
Are you convinced?
You may choose one of these three options to analyze:
The Elderly vs. Essential Workers: Who Should Get the Coronavirus Vaccine First?

2. Hollywood Is Preparing to Sacrifice Movie Theaters
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/12/warnermedias-sacrifice/617306/

3. China has lost its confidence
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/china-has-lost-its-confidence/2020/12/04/2f1171b8-364f-11eb-b59c-adb7153d10c2_story.html
______________________________________________________________________

The Elderly vs. Essential Workers: Who Should Get the Coronavirus Vaccine First?

The C.D.C. will soon decide which group to recommend next, and the debate over the trade-offs is growing heated. Ultimately, states will determine whom to include.

By Abby Goodnough and Jan Hoffman
Dec. 5, 2020Updated 1:58 p.m. ET
With the coronavirus pandemic surging and initial vaccine supplies limited, the United States faces a hard choice: Should the country’s immunization program focus in the early months on the elderly and people with serious medical conditions, who are dying of the virus at the highest rates, or on essential workers, an expansive category encompassing Americans who have borne the greatest risk of infection?

Health care workers and the frailest of the elderly — residents of long-term-care facilities — will almost certainly get the first shots, under guidelines the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued on Thursday. But with vaccination expected to start this month, the debate among federal and state health officials about who goes next, and lobbying from outside groups to be included, is growing more urgent.

It’s a question increasingly guided by concerns over the inequities laid bare by the pandemic, from disproportionately high rates of infection and death among poor people and people of color to disparate access to testing, child care and technology for online schooling.

“It’s damnable that we are even being placed in this position that we have to make these choices,” said the Rev. William J. Barber II, a co-chairman of the Poor People’s Campaign, a national coalition that calls attention to the challenges of the working poor. “But if we have to make the choice, we cannot once again leave poor and low-wealth essential workers to be last.”
Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether preventing death or curbing the spread of the virus and returning to some semblance of normalcy is the highest priority. “If your goal is to maximize the preservation of human life, then you would bias the vaccine toward older Americans,” Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, said recently. “If your goal is to reduce the rate of infection, then you would prioritize essential workers. So it depends what impact you’re trying to achieve.”

The trade-off between the two is muddied by the fact that the definition of “essential workers” used by the C.D.C. comprises nearly 70 percent of the American work force, sweeping in not just grocery store clerks and emergency responders, but tugboat operators, exterminators and nuclear energy workers. Some labor economists and public health officials consider the category overbroad and say it should be narrowed to only those who interact in person with the public.
Essential and Frontline Occupations
About 70 percent of workers in the U.S. have jobs that are considered essential. A subset are considered “frontline” workers, meaning their jobs cannot be performed from home. Hover or tap to see each job.

Essential

Frontline
Office andadministrative supportTransportationFood preparationand servingHealthcareProductionEducationSalesInstallation, maintenanceand repairConstruction andextractionBuilding andmaintenanceManagementLaw enforcementand protectionComputersArchitecture andengineeringBusiness andfinanceCommunity andsocial servicesLife, physical andsocial sciencesFarming, fishingand forestryEntertainment, sportsand mediaFuneraryservicesLaw3 millionOffice clerks2.9 millionCustomer servicerepresentatives1.5 millionAccounting clerks1.5 millionAdministrative supportsupervisors3 millionManual materialmovers2.1 millionStockers1.9 millionDrivers ofheavy trucks4 millionFast-food andcounter workers1.4 millionRestaurant cooks1 millionFood preparation andservice supervisors3 millionRegistered nurses1.4 millionNursing assistants1.4 millionElementary schoolteachers1 millionSecondary schoolteachers3.6 millionCashiers1.2 millionRetail salessupervisors1.4 millionMaintenance workers1 millionConstruction workers2.1 millionJanitors andcleaners1.1 millionSecurity guards

By Matthew Conlen·Note: States may have differing definitions of essential workers. | Sources: Labor Market Information Institute and Council for Community and Economic Research analysis of Department of Homeland Security guidelines (essential occupations); National Bureau of Economic Research analysis (frontline occupations); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (occupation data)

An independent committee of medical experts that advises the C.D.C. on immunization practices will soon vote on whom to recommend for the second phase of vaccination — “Phase 1b.” In a meeting last month, all voting members of the committee indicated support for putting essential workers ahead of people 65 and older and those with high-risk health conditions.

Historically, the committee relied on scientific evidence to inform its decisions. But now the members are weighing social justice concerns as well, noted Lisa A. Prosser, a professor of health policy and decision sciences at the University of Michigan.
ADVERTISEMENT
“To me the issue of ethics is very significant, very important for this country,” Dr. Peter Szilagyi, a committee member and a pediatrics professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said at the time, “and clearly favors the essential worker group because of the high proportion of minority, low-income and low-education workers among essential workers.”

That position runs counter to frameworks proposed by the World Health Organization, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and many countries, which say that reducing deaths should be the unequivocal priority and that older and sicker people should thus go before the workers, a view shared by many in public health and medicine.

Dr. Robert Redfield, the C.D.C. director and the nation’s top public health official, reminded the advisory committee of the importance of older people, saying in a statement on Thursday that he looked forward to “future recommendations that, based on vaccine availability, demonstrate that we as a nation also prioritize the elderly.”

Once the committee votes, Dr. Redfield will decide whether to accept its recommendations as the official guidance of the agency. Only rarely does a C.D.C. director reject a recommendation from the committee, whose 14 members are selected by the Health and Human Services secretary, serve four-and-a-half-year terms and have never confronted a task as high in profile as this one.

But ultimately, the decision will be up to governors and state and local health officials. They are not required to follow C.D.C. guidelines, though historically they have done so.

Defining ‘essential’
There are about 90 million essential workers nationwide, as defined by a division of the Department of Homeland Security that compiled a roster of jobs that help maintain critical infrastructure during a pandemic. That list is long, and because there won’t be enough doses to reach everyone at first, states are preparing to make tough decisions: Louisiana’s preliminary plan, for example, puts prison guards and food processing workers ahead of teachers and grocery employees. Nevada’s prioritizes education and public transit workers over those in retail and food processing.

Share of workers in essential and frontline jobs, by state

Mississippi58% are frontline workers75% are essentialArkansas56%75%West Virginia55%75%Kentucky56%75%Tennessee54%75%Indiana55%74%Alabama55%74%Ohio52%74%Iowa52%73%Wyoming56%73%Oklahoma53%73%South Carolina54%73%Wisconsin52%73%Louisiana55%73%North Carolina52%72%Pennsylvania50%72%Nebraska51%72%Michigan51%72%Texas49%72%North Dakota53%72%Alaska50%72%Delaware49%72%Kansas52%72%Georgia50%72%Missouri51%71%Illinois49%71%Maine51%71%Rhode Island48%71%Idaho50%71%Montana50%71%Virginia47%70%New Jersey48%70%New Hampshire47%70%New Mexico51%70%South Dakota52%70%Connecticut46%70%Arizona46%70%Vermont49%69%Minnesota48%69%Oregon49%69%Washington47%69%California48%69%Maryland45%69%Massachusetts44%69%Utah45%67%Florida47%67%Hawaii50%67%Colorado46%67%Nevada50%66%New York43%66%District of Columbia30%53%

At this early point, many state plans put at least some people who are older and live independently, or people who have medical conditions, ahead of most essential workers, though that could change after the C.D.C. committee makes a formal recommendation on the next phase.

One occupation whose priority is being hotly debated is teaching. The C.D.C. includes educators as essential workers. But not everyone agrees with that designation.

Marc Lipsitch, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, argued that teachers should not be included as essential workers, if a central goal of the committee is to reduce health inequities.

“Teachers have middle-class salaries, are very often white, and they have college degrees,” he said. “Of course they should be treated better, but they are not among the most mistreated of workers.”

Elise Gould, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, disagreed. Teachers not only ensure that children don’t fall further behind in their education, she said, but are also critical to the work force at large.
“When you talk about disproportionate impact and you’re concerned about people getting back into the labor force, many are mothers, and they will have a harder time if their children don’t have a reliable place to go,” she said. “And if you think generally about people who have jobs where they can’t telework, they are disproportionately Black and brown. They’ll have more of a challenge when child care is an issue.”
In September, academic researchers analyzed the Department of Homeland Security’s list of essential workers and found that it broadly mirrored the demographics of the American labor force. The researchers proposed a narrower, more vulnerable category — “frontline workers,” such as food deliverers, cashiers and emergency medical technicians, who must work face to face with others and are thus at greater risk of contracting the virus.

By this definition, said Francine D. Blau, a labor economist at Cornell University and an author of the study, teachers belong in the larger category of essential workers. However, when they work in classrooms rather than remotely, she said, they would fit into the “frontline” group. Individual states categorize teachers differently.

Dr. Blau said that if supplies are short, frontline workers should be emphasized. “These are a subset of essential workers who, given the nature of their jobs, must provide their labor in person. Prioritizing them makes sense given the heightened risk that they face.”

The analysis, a working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, is in line with other critics, who say that the list of essential workers is too wide-ranging.

“If groups are too large, then you’re not really focusing on priorities,” said Saad B. Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, who worked on the vaccination frameworks for the W.H.O. and the National Academies.

The essential workers on the federal list make up nearly 70 percent of the American labor force, the researchers said, compared with 42 percent for the frontline workers. Women made up 39 percent of frontline workers and, in certain occupations, far more. Frontline workers’ education levels are lower, as are their wages — on average, just under $22 an hour. The proportion of Black and Hispanic workers is higher than in the broader category of essential workers.
A nursing home resident in Brooklyn being taken to a hospital last April. The C.D.C. recommends that residents of long-term care facilities, along with health care workers, get the very first vaccines.Credit…Lucas Jackson/Reuters
Some health policy experts said that to prioritize preventing deaths rather than reducing virus transmission was simply a pragmatic choice, because there won’t be enough vaccine initially available to make a meaningful dent in contagion. A more effective use of limited quantities, they say, is to save the lives of the most frail.

Moreover, vaccine trial results so far show only that the shots can protect the individuals who receive them. The trials have not yet demonstrated that a vaccinated person would not infect others. Though scientists believe that is likely to be the case, it has yet to be proved.

Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks, and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter, ” Dr. Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

But to protect older people more at risk, he called on the C.D.C. committee to also integrate the agency’s own “social vulnerability index.”

The index includes 15 measures derived from the census, such as overcrowded housing, lack of vehicle access and poverty, to determine how urgently a community needs health support, with the goal of reducing inequities.

In a new analysis of the states’ preliminary vaccine plans, Dr. Schmidt found that at least 18 states intended to apply the index. Tennessee, for one, has indicated that it will reserve some of its early allotments for disadvantaged communities.
Still, some people believe it is wrong to give racial and socioeconomic equity more weight than who is most likely to die.

“They need to have bombproof, fact-based, public-health-based reasons for why one group goes ahead of another,” said Chuck Ludlam, a former Senate aide and biotech industry lobbyist who protested putting essential workers ahead of older people in comments to the committee. “They have provided no explanation here that will withstand public scrutiny.”

Blurred lines, many unknowns
Employees of the Four Seasons Rehabilitation and Nursing in Westland, Mich., demonstrated for better pay and protections during an outbreak of Covid-19 in October.Credit…Emily Elconin/Reuters
Further complicating matters, the different priority groups discussed by the C.D.C. committee are overlapping — many essential workers have high-risk conditions, and some are older than 65. Some states have suggested that they will prioritize only essential workers who come face to face with the public, while others have not prioritized them at all.

Even some people whose allegiance lies with one group have made the case that others should have an earlier claim on the vaccine. Marc Perrone, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represents 1.3 million grocery and food processing workers, said that despite the high rate of infection among his members, he thought that older adults should go first.

“Here’s the thing: Everybody’s got a grandmother or grandfather,” Mr. Perrone said. “And I do believe almost everybody in this country would want to protect them, or their aging parents.”

But Dr. Nirav Shah, Maine’s top public health official, said he respectfully disagreed, repeating the explanation he had given his in-laws — who are older but in good health and able to socially distance.
He said: “I’ve told them: ‘You know what? I’m sorry, but there are others that I need to get this vaccine to first, so that when you guys get vaccinated, the world you come back into is ready to receive you.’”

All these plans are, of course, unfurling with essential information still unknown.Many state officials said that as on-the-ground realities emerge, they fully expect their plans to evolve.

One uncertainty: given the high rates of apprehension swirling around this vaccine, how many people in the early groups will actually line up for it?

“If a high proportion of essential workers decline to get the vaccine, states will have to quickly move onto the next group anyway,” said Dr. Prosser, the University of Michigan health analyst. “Because once the vaccines arrive, they will have to be used in a certain amount of time before they degrade.”

Additional work by Jugal K. Patel.
Abby Goodnough is a national health care correspondent. She has also served as bureau chief in Miami and Boston, and covered education and politics in New York City. She joined The Times in 1993. @abbygoodnough

Jan Hoffman writes about behavioral health and health law. Her wide-ranging subjects include opioids, vaping, tribes and adolescents. @JanHoffmanNYT

A version of this article appears in print on Dec. 6, 2020 of the New York edition with the headline: Officials Agonize Over Recipients Of First Vaccines. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Hollywood Is Preparing to Sacrifice Movie Theaters
WarnerMedia’s decision to put all of its 2021 films on HBO Max is a shortsighted decision that will have major repercussions.

DAVID SIMS
8:00 AM ET

This week, a seismic shift hit the cinema industry. WarnerMedia, one of the world’s biggest movie studios, announced that all of its 2021 films, including blockbusters such as Dune and The Matrix 4, would debut on HBO Max and in theaters at the same time. Each movie would stream for one month before leaving the platform, an unusual arrangement seemingly geared toward giving subscribers a stream of new films, while also allowing movies to play in theaters. In a statement, WarnerMedia described this hybrid model as “a strategic response to the impact of the ongoing global pandemic.”

This apparent compromise, however, will be disastrous for theaters. The movies WarnerMedia will put on HBO Max, starting with Wonder Woman 1984 on Christmas, span every genre and budget size. Audiences will get big-franchise movies (Godzilla vs. Kong and The Suicide Squad), awards-friendly fare (King Richard and Judas and the Black Messiah), family films (Tom & Jerry and Space Jam 2), a cinematic prequel to The Sopranos, a new Clint Eastwood movie, and more. Audiences will have little incentive to pay more to see these films in theaters, even if pandemic restrictions permit, creating a new set of consumer expectations that will be hard to undo. Theater chains are right to fear for their survival. And WarnerMedia’s move, which seems more motivated by panic than a desire for long-term success, is a risky bet for studios, too.

In the short term, everything WarnerMedia is doing makes sense. Even with a COVID-19 vaccine in the early stages of a rollout, the American theater industry is unlikely to bounce back to anything close to normal before the summer of 2021—that’s a long while to wait for some of these films, which were completed ages ago. Other cinema markets, particularly in Asia, are booming because of their countries’ better management of the pandemic. This simultaneous-release strategy is a way for Warner to tap into box-office grosses worldwide while strengthening the appeal of HBO Max at home. Insiders at the studio are insisting that this is just a temporary change that can easily revert after 2021.

The only, tiny issue is that theaters may not be able to survive that long. AMC, the biggest cinema chain in the United States, has warned investors that it could be out of cash by early 2021. Regal, another major chain, has closed its theaters indefinitely. These businesses need product to survive, and even if they’re running in any form in 2021, it will be hard to sell most audiences on returning if they can already watch many big movies in their living rooms. So far, no other studio has proposed anything as dramatic as WarnerMedia’s plan, but changes are already afoot. Disney previously announced that it would be shifting more attention to its streaming platform, and NBCUniversal is similarly trying to build out Peacock. Even Paramount has announced that it will convert the TV-focused CBS All Access streaming service into the movie-branded Paramount+.

In short, other studios could conceivably make the same move as WarnerMedia. Until now, WarnerMedia had been the distributor most focused on theatrical releases; in September, it notably pushed out Christopher Nolan’s Tenet, a major release that most cinema chains worked to reopen for. Though the film grossed some $60 million domestically (far more than any other pandemic release), it couldn’t single-handedly rejuvenate the industry; theaters in the major markets of New York and Los Angeles never opened up as Hollywood had hoped.

Read: Hollywood’s ‘Tenet’ experiment didn’t work

Unsurprisingly, the major chains greeted WarnerMedia’s latest news with derision and despair. “Clearly, WarnerMedia intends to sacrifice a considerable portion of the profitability of its movie studio division, and that of its production partners and filmmakers, to subsidize its HBO Max startup,” said AMC CEO Adam Aron in a statement. “As for AMC, we will do all in our power to ensure that Warner does not do so at our expense. We will aggressively pursue economic terms that preserve our business. … it is our expectation that moviegoers soon will be able once again to delight in coming to our theaters without any worry.”

WarnerMedia wouldn’t have made this decision lightly. Its earlier announcement that Wonder Woman 1984 would debut on HBO Max likely led to a big subscriber boost, giving executives confidence that other big films such as Dune could bump numbers even more. But these movies still all need major marketing campaigns to roll out, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce. The first Wonder Woman made about $820 million worldwide in theaters alone; to “gross” that for a streaming service, any one movie would have to add tens of millions of monthly subscribers all by itself. HBO Max currently has about 57 million subscribers worldwide; that kind of growth would be hard to achieve, and even harder to sustain.
For all the promise of streaming services, which are vital for any major media company’s future, they cannot deliver the massive profits of a successful global theatrical release. Netflix, the biggest streaming site, relies more on consistent mid-budgeted TV and movie releases than it does on mega-budgeted event films, and has gone billions into debt to do so. That could be the future for a company such as WarnerMedia too, but it wouldn’t likely be able to make the kinds of tentpoles it does now if it emphasizes streaming.

Read: Theaters needed James Bond to rescue them. Now what?

If theaters do somehow survive the hammer blows of the pandemic—the lack of government help, uncooperative major studios—the entire industry will look different than it did at the start of 2020. Cinemas could become even more of a boutique experience, charging much higher premiums for a big-screen experience to people uninterested in viewing movies at home. Big companies such as Amazon or Disney could swoop in to buy the foundering chains, then use them to promote their own releases.

The main variable that remains impossible to predict in all of this is human behavior. People in the U.S. have largely been cooped up at home for much of 2020, and will continue to live pandemic-limited lives for much of 2021. Even in states with little to no restrictions, cinemas have failed to pack the house; audiences have too much anxiety about sitting inside a windowless room with a bunch of strangers. Once a vaccine is widely distributed, a pent-up desire to return to normalcy could be unleashed. I, certainly, crave the collective experience of movie-watching; I’m sure I’m not the only one sick of seeing things from my couch. If other studios go the way of WarnerMedia, theaters will be hanging their hopes on that nostalgia.
Unsupported image type.
DAVID SIMS is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers culture.

China has lost its confidence
Opinion by

David Von Drehle

Columnist

Dec. 4, 2020 at 4:38 p.m. EST

China’s wrong turn, away from freedom and toward repression, has been masked for a time by the country’s remarkable economic progress. Awestruck Western leaders have wondered whether there might be something to the idea of prosperity divorced from human rights. But now, the signs are unmistakable that this long-troubled nation is off track again, from the concentration camps of the Chinese west to shackled Hong Kong in the east. The China Miracle, unleashed by the liberalization of the late 20th century, is losing its momentum because Beijing has lost its confidence.

Yes, confidence. A confident government doesn’t lock up a million or more ethnic Muslims for months, even years, of brainwashing, as China continues to do in Xinjiang. A confident Beijing would no sooner throttle the intellectual vibrancy of Hong Kong than Canada would crack down on Montreal, or the United States would stifle San Jose. Repression is — always and everywhere — the mark of a government afraid of its own people. In the modern world, where human capital is the indispensable resource, repression is, therefore, fatal to development.
Making matters worse is China’s proud self-image as the world’s most patient country. China thinks in decades, in centuries, in millennia, whereas the West flits from month to month and quarter to quarter. But strategic patience is not a virtue in itself. It serves only when the underlying strategy is sound. A strategy of repression is doomed to fail no matter how long or how brutally it is pursued.

For proof, look no further than China’s stunningly oppressive — and demographically destructive — one-child policy. Dogged persistence only made it worse. By the time Beijing adjusted the strategy, incalculable long-term damage was done.

A great power in thrall to a repressive, insecure, stubborn government — this is the backdrop for the most severe geopolitical challenge of the coming decades. China has put itself on track for failure while priding itself for staying the course. How can the United States and its partners shorten the duration and minimize the damage of this highly precarious situation?

Answering that question is not the work of 800-odd words, but of a generation or more. However, certain principles should guide us.

First, the West holds a winning hand in our commitment to individual rights. We can lose only by folding. The fact that we haven’t always lived up to our ideals in no way repudiates the ideals themselves. Diversity of thought, freedom to question and create, equality before the law, and individual human dignity have always tended to foster prosperity and strength — and always will.

Some nations are further along in this journey than others. Where there is no rule of law, there can be no equality before the law. Where there is no education, there can be little intellectual diversity. Where there is extreme want, dignity is a luxury. But no matter where a nation finds itself on the path of development, the next best step is one that points toward human fulfillment. The West prevails by believing in this idea, nurturing it and holding it up as a beacon.

Second, Western military superiority is most effective as a shield, not as a sword. Its value is in protecting liberty and deterring aggression. The crusading spirit that led us into Iraq and Afghanistan, hopeful that military conquest would produce social progress, was misguided and ultimately dispiriting. But the goal — progress — was no mistake. We merely employed the wrong tool.

The right tool — our sword, properly understood — is economic superiority. The Western way offers a wealthier, more peaceful and freer world, and this, not brute force, explains the tremendous success of the West over the past 75 years. This will continue to work in the future, if we keep faith.

Consider Kazakhstan, on China’s western border. This vast, sparsely populated land is a place of enormous economic potential, crucial to China’s dream of a new Silk Road. Yet, while China locks ethnic Kazakhs in concentration camps, the United States is one of Kazakhstan’s leading sources of direct foreign investment. That’s how we win.

The most important, and most precarious, decision the United States and its allies must make in response to China is how deeply to commit the Western military shield to Taiwan’s independence. In few places has the sword of economic development been wielded so brilliantly; Taiwan is a high-tech power through its advances in microchip manufacturing. Will we risk war with Beijing to defend Taiwan’s freedom?

This question leads to a third principle: China policy is now too important to be a plaything for Washington’s reckless partisans. Just as warring Democrats and Republicans agreed after World War II to unite behind a Cold War strategy, so, too, must today’s leaders seek a consistent approach to China. Beijing has taken a menacing wrong turn. We need steady hands in response.

David Von Drehle

David Von Drehle writes a twice-weekly column for The Post. He was previously an editor-at-large for Time Magazine, and is the author of four books, including “Rise to Greatness: Abraham Lincoln and America’s Most Perilous Year” and “Triangle: The Fire That Changed America.”

Last Completed Projects

topic title	academic level	Writer	delivered