Premium Writing

This is a very detailed paper that has many layres of intructions. There is a short video that needs to be watched and a file of instructions with reading material attached to complete this paper.

https://us-lti.bbcollab.com/recording/4c7e3d2fe1c44ce6a3034a34235b1799

The F111A essay is not easy. It will take time for you to do the research, pull together the relevant information, organize your paper and produce a well-thought out paper. I HIGHLY recommend that as you go through each lesson, you pay attention to the readings that discuss how things were done during the post-Vietnam era. As you identify differences in how things were done back then compared to now, write it down. Write down where you found the information in the readings. This will make the F111A essay go a bit more smoothly.
The F111A is a comparative analysis of HOW FM processes were done post-Vietnam vs. today’s processes. The paper is not about if the Big Five programs were successful, if the equipment did well in combat, or the complete history of how any of them were developed. The paper is about the way (how, processes) the Army went about executing change, how that is different today (comparison), and why the differences matter (analysis).
The Army was in a bad spot coming out of Vietnam. It was a light infantry centric organization that was not modernized and not capable of executing large scale, maneuver combat. The Army needed to develop materiel solutions AND change the organizational structure to fix the problem. This required determining strategic guidance/decision making, capability determination, acquisition and organizational change. If you are looking for the readings to give you a detailed process of how things were done post-Vietnam, you will not find it. It did not exist like we have today. This is why you need to use the actions the Army took back then and compare those to the processes we use today.
Given this paper is about HOW things were done, using one of the Big Five is so you have the information from which to execute a comparison. We give you the readings that say how these programs were decided upon, the way the Army did capability determination (or not in some cases), and went through the acquisition process of post-Vietnam. This allows you to compare what happened in the past with today’s processes. Given you also need to address organizational change, the F104 lesson tells you how we do it today, and you have readings in F105 that discuss the methods used by the Army post-Vietnam to do a comparison.
I highly recommend you DO NOT try go through the historical actions, then go through today’s processes, and then try to do analysis at the end. This is not a comparison. It is not the reader’s job to identify the differences in a comparative analysis. It is your job as the writer to clearly identify, discuss and analyze those differences.
I recommend you structure your paper as follows:
– Introduction (a proper introduction with the paper’s purpose, thesis and primary supporting topics)
– Strategic problem (what condition was the Army in post-Vietnam, the threat that needed addressed, etc. Why did the Army need to change?)
– Strategic decision making (comparison and analysis)
– Capability determination (comparison and analysis)
– Acquisition (comparison and analysis)
– Organization (comparison and analysis)
– Conclusion (a proper conclusion that restates the primary points and does not introduce new information)
A paper 4-6 pages in length (3.5 pages is not 4 pages) is not a lot of room. You need to get to drawing out your specific differences and how that is specifically different than today. Again, do not try to give a history lesson and then regurgitate the entire current processes. That is not a comparison, and that is not analysis.
1. SCOPE
The F111 lesson contains the two final assessments of F100. The two assessments may be completed in any order. However, both assessments require you to apply the knowledge you gained during this course. Both assessments are addressed in the F100 block advance sheet Appendix A, Assessment Plan located in the F100 lesson area in Blackboard.
– The first assessment is the 4- to 6-page F111 Final Essay (40% of the F100 grade).
– The second assessment is the F111 Final Exam; it is a Cumulative Blackboard Exam (20% of the F100 grade). This is a multiple-choice test with a 2.5-hour time limit. The test cannot be paused or stopped once started. You have one attempt.
2. LEARNING OBJECTIVES
This lesson supports CGSOC TLO-CC-8, “Demonstrate Department of Defense processes that provide Army capabilities to commanders,” as listed in the F100 block advance sheet.
3. FINAL ESSAY INSTRUCTIONS
The administrative requirements for the Final Essay are the same as the two other submitted written assessments (with the exception of length requirement), and are listed in the F100 Appendix A, Assessment Plan. However, the grading rubric is different for the F111 Final Essay. The F111 Final Essay grading rubric is at the end of this document. All students should review ST 22-2 for writing standards and use the Writing Resource Center (contact information on Blackboard).
F111 Final Essay (40%):
This essay (4-6 pages) is due after the completion of F110. The final essay is a comparative analysis. You will compare the processes used to change the Army during the post-Vietnam timeframe to the processes used today. Use one of the Big 5 from your readings as the basis to conduct the comparison. The primary topic of the paper is not one of the Big 5, but using one of the Big 5 provides you the information needed to do a comparison of past processes vs. today’s processes.
JCIDS, DAS, PPBE, TAA, TAP, etc. did not exist during the post-Vietnam era. So how did the Army make decisions and how is that different than today? Why does it matter?
This is not a history paper of what happened in the past, nor is it a paper that acts like the current processes were used in the past. It is a comparative analysis. How did the Army decide what strategic changes needed to take place? How was it different than what happens today? What is your analysis of this difference/these differences? The preceding is an example for looking at strategic guidance. Ensure you address each of the ELOs. You must address materiel and organizational change in your essay. Ensure you do not simply restate history and regurgitate today’s process; that is not a comparative analysis between two different things. See the F100 Discussion Board for further discussion.
As with all essays, you must cite properly. Papers turned in without citations are academically unacceptable. https://us-lti.bbcollab.com/recording/4c7e3d2fe1c44ce6a3034a34235b1799
The F111A essay is not easy. It will take time for you to do the research, pull together the relevant information, organize your paper and produce a well-thought out paper. I HIGHLY recommend that as you go through each lesson, you pay attention to the readings that discuss how things were done during the post-Vietnam era. As you identify differences in how things were done back then compared to now, write it down. Write down where you found the information in the readings. This will make the F111A essay go a bit more smoothly.
The F111A is a comparative analysis of HOW FM processes were done post-Vietnam vs. today’s processes. The paper is not about if the Big Five programs were successful, if the equipment did well in combat, or the complete history of how any of them were developed. The paper is about the way (how, processes) the Army went about executing change, how that is different today (comparison), and why the differences matter (analysis).
The Army was in a bad spot coming out of Vietnam. It was a light infantry centric organization that was not modernized and not capable of executing large scale, maneuver combat. The Army needed to develop materiel solutions AND change the organizational structure to fix the problem. This required determining strategic guidance/decision making, capability determination, acquisition and organizational change. If you are looking for the readings to give you a detailed process of how things were done post-Vietnam, you will not find it. It did not exist like we have today. This is why you need to use the actions the Army took back then and compare those to the processes we use today.
Given this paper is about HOW things were done, using one of the Big Five is so you have the information from which to execute a comparison. We give you the readings that say how these programs were decided upon, the way the Army did capability determination (or not in some cases), and went through the acquisition process of post-Vietnam. This allows you to compare what happened in the past with today’s processes. Given you also need to address organizational change, the F104 lesson tells you how we do it today, and you have readings in F105 that discuss the methods used by the Army post-Vietnam to do a comparison.
I highly recommend you DO NOT try go through the historical actions, then go through today’s processes, and then try to do analysis at the end. This is not a comparison. It is not the reader’s job to identify the differences in a comparative analysis. It is your job as the writer to clearly identify, discuss and analyze those differences.
I recommend you structure your paper as follows:
– Introduction (a proper introduction with the paper’s purpose, thesis and primary supporting topics)
– Strategic problem (what condition was the Army in post-Vietnam, the threat that needed addressed, etc. Why did the Army need to change?)
– Strategic decision making (comparison and analysis)
– Capability determination (comparison and analysis)
– Acquisition (comparison and analysis)
– Organization (comparison and analysis)
– Conclusion (a proper conclusion that restates the primary points and does not introduce new information)
A paper 4-6 pages in length (3.5 pages is not 4 pages) is not a lot of room. You need to get to drawing out your specific differences and how that is specifically different than today. Again, do not try to give a history lesson and then regurgitate the entire current processes. That is not a comparison, and that is not analysis.
1. SCOPE
The F111 lesson contains the two final assessments of F100. The two assessments may be completed in any order. However, both assessments require you to apply the knowledge you gained during this course. Both assessments are addressed in the F100 block advance sheet Appendix A, Assessment Plan located in the F100 lesson area in Blackboard.
– The first assessment is the 4- to 6-page F111 Final Essay (40% of the F100 grade).
– The second assessment is the F111 Final Exam; it is a Cumulative Blackboard Exam (20% of the F100 grade). This is a multiple-choice test with a 2.5-hour time limit. The test cannot be paused or stopped once started. You have one attempt.
2. LEARNING OBJECTIVES
This lesson supports CGSOC TLO-CC-8, “Demonstrate Department of Defense processes that provide Army capabilities to commanders,” as listed in the F100 block advance sheet.
3. FINAL ESSAY INSTRUCTIONS
The administrative requirements for the Final Essay are the same as the two other submitted written assessments (with the exception of length requirement), and are listed in the F100 Appendix A, Assessment Plan. However, the grading rubric is different for the F111 Final Essay. The F111 Final Essay grading rubric is at the end of this document. All students should review ST 22-2 for writing standards and use the Writing Resource Center (contact information on Blackboard).
F111 Final Essay (40%):
This essay (4-6 pages) is due after the completion of F110. The final essay is a comparative analysis. You will compare the processes used to change the Army during the post-Vietnam timeframe to the processes used today. Use one of the Big 5 from your readings as the basis to conduct the comparison. The primary topic of the paper is not one of the Big 5, but using one of the Big 5 provides you the information needed to do a comparison of past processes vs. today’s processes.
JCIDS, DAS, PPBE, TAA, TAP, etc. did not exist during the post-Vietnam era. So how did the Army make decisions and how is that different than today? Why does it matter?
This is not a history paper of what happened in the past, nor is it a paper that acts like the current processes were used in the past. It is a comparative analysis. How did the Army decide what strategic changes needed to take place? How was it different than what happens today? What is your analysis of this difference/these differences? The preceding is an example for looking at strategic guidance. Ensure you address each of the ELOs. You must address materiel and organizational change in your essay. Ensure you do not simply restate history and regurgitate today’s process; that is not a comparative analysis between two different things. See the F100 Discussion Board for further discussion.
As with all essays, you must cite properly. Papers turned in without citations are academically unacceptable.

studying the effects depression has on officers, and present a few case studies (from several states) about how law enforcemnet officers (both corrections and police) are cared for from state to state or country to country ( can compare state to state or country to country, whichever is easier.)

o Using meta-analysis, you will research peer- reviewed sources and statistics of current and past policies for the care of the mentally ill within the Criminal Justice System of three locations: Florida, and two of your choice.
o Your research findings will conclude with proposed amendments to the current policies to improve the care and treatment of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system.
o Your research findings and policy updates will be presented to the class as a proposal for funding your policy changes. The class will function as the audience you wish to gain the support of.
o The audience, ostensibly, is responsible for funding further programs and policy implementations you will be creating based on your findings and will also be graded in their participation and critical review of your work.

This week, we continued exploring the debate between Clifford and James concerning the ethics of belief, particularly how this debate has evolved with new technology and in our contemporary context. For this Critical Assessment, you will be asked to use your knowledge from the past two weeks to answer the following question:

“Is one of the heuristics from the Clifford/James debate that we explored in week 1–avoid falsehoods or acquire truths–a better heuristic to use, assuming you want to avoid echo chambers?”

In total, your paper should be about 800 words. You should address the following over the course of your paper:

a. Using an example, explain what the distinguishing features of echo chambers are and why one might want to avoid echo chambers when possible, given the reading for this week. (This should be about 3-5 sentences).

b. Explain what these two heuristics are and how they are generated from James’s/Clifford’s views (i.e., why do the core features of Clifford’s view yield this rule for how we should approach new beliefs/evidence? why do the core features of James’s view yield this rule for how we should think about risk/reward with respect to beliefs?). (This should be about 4-5 sentences).

c. Defend a position concerning the bolded question above and explain your answer. Notice that your answer may take on one of three claims: (1) avoid falsehoods is a better heuristic for avoiding echo chambers, (2) acquire truths is a better heuristic for avoiding echo chambers, or (3) neither heuristic will help one avoid echo chambers. (This should be the majority of your paper). In defending your argument, you should use the podcast to support your argument (and think about what advice you’d give Caleb in writing your argument). Here’s some things to consider that you may want to address, or at least think about before writing this Critical Assessment: How did Caleb see himself when he went down the far-right rabbit hole and when he then went down the far-left one? How did Caleb think about the beliefs/evidence of others compared to his own? Do you think Caleb is any less susceptible to echo chambers at the end of the story?

Your paper should include a brief (~3 sentence) introduction and conclusion. You can use quotes from either of the papers to support your interpretation, but you must try to explain these concepts mainly in your own words. If you do use quotes or say something like “Clifford argues that…” you should include an in-text citation that identifies the author and the page number associated with the argument. Be sure to spend some time looking through the rubric before you begin writing the CA.

(you only need to use the sources I have provided. Including two reading packets and two podcasts(these sources must be included.
This paper doesn’t require a reference page, but in-text citations are needed.
This paper requires a large portion of original thoughts and understandings rather than3 paraphrasing the philosophy and ethical theories for a large amount.
This paper requires specific and correct explanation of the examples you choose to include from the podcast or reading.Thank you!)

The podcast links:
1.

2.

Article in uploaded files

For this assignment, you must write a 2 page (600 words of content) reaction paper on your thoughts while reading the assigned article for the week.
Briefly summarize the article (1 or 2 paragraphs). Then, you could write about what you found interesting, what surprised you, discuss how the content relates to the readings for the week, or relate the article content to your previous knowledge.

All the instructions will be on the file i put in its called “source paper 3 instrcutions”
you will need to use 2 sources from the story i am posting and 2 sources but get with me about the aditional last 2 sources…

The essay has to be about the story ” THE PRINCIPLES OF HEAVENLY NATURE” that i have posted as a word document

Examine two different perspectives of American affluence by notable intellectuals of the period. The first is by Clark Kerr, Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley. And the second is by sociologist C. Wright Mills.

Clark Kerr, “Freedom in Industrial Society” (1960), in Foner, Voices of Freedom, 245-249.
C. Wright Mills, “On ‘Cheerful Robots'” (1959), in Foner, Voices of Freedom, 255-257.
Kerr argued that in America industrial society and individual freedom were compatible, but that this new society also demanded a new consensus about the ideas and values central to the functioning of that society. Although work in industrial society requires a good deal of discipline and limits to an individual’s freedom, this is compensated for by the expansion of leisure activities and consumerism outside of work which provides the economic conditions for that freedom in industrial society. Furthermore, industrial society requires a necessary consensus beyond ideological or political disagreement. This consensus concerns a common set of ideas, beliefs, and value judgments, articulated by educated intellectuals, and integrated throughout the whole of American industrial society, which cannot function with that consensus.

Mills, on the other hand, argued that the Cold War and industrial society in America in the 1950s created the conditions for a new sense of alienation along with the demands of conformity and normalization. Work had become monotonous and repetitive. Suburban life was homogeneous and hollow. Consumerism created the endless cycles of desire and its temporary satiation. And massive bureaucracies ruled by “power elites”—corporate executives, politicians, scientists, and military leaders—alienated individuals from their freedom. Technological society could create a new conformism without recourse to forms of political oppression characteristic of totalitarian societies. Social control could be achieved on a wide scale through the means of proper training and conditioning, or could produce what Mills called “cheerful robots”: a society comprised of predictable human automatons, lacking freedom and rational thought.

Your task is to compare and contrast these two sources and explain how their very different assessments of America in the 1950s reflects the new circumstances of technological society. You do not necessarily have to take a side in their debate, or agree or disagree with one side or the either. A very good paper, for instance, will formulate an interpretation that shows how this debate reflects the broader place of America within the historical context of the Cold War and American consumerism in the 1950s.

Here are some questions to help you think about the two sources (you don’t necessarily have to answer these questions in your paper)

How does the concept of freedom function differently in Kerr and Mills? Are there any points of agreement between the two about freedom?
How do the circumstances of America’s involvement in the Cold War create the conditions upon which this new technological society functions?
How does the America Kerr and Mills describe in the 1950s differ from the America of the 1930s during the Great Depression?
In what sense, if at all, might the descriptions or prescriptions of Kerr and Mills still apply to American technological society today, in the 2020s?
For the paper it is absolutely imperative that you cite your sources using one of the acceptable academic citation styles (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.), and that the citations appear correctly in the body of your paper. If you fail to submit a paper with citations you will fail the assignment. You must cite your sources.

The paper must include the following:

A descriptive title.
A thesis statement and an argument. Do not simply summarize or describe the sources. Provide an analysis of the meaning and significance of the texts. In other words, form an interpretation of the texts.
Provide evidence from the text to support your thesis statement. The evidence must come from the text itself.
Use in-text citations when quoting or paraphrasing a source.
Include a bibliography at the end of your paper.
750-1250 words (a minimum of 3 full pages, roughly, 3-5 pages).
10 or 12-point readable font, double-spaced, with 1” margins

Number each point.

1) Discuss FIVE major points discussed in the readings on Reconstruction.

2) For each point note explain why you feel it is important.

The final paper for the course is a 4 to 7-page paper on 2014 and beyond for J.C. Penney’s. Using the research that you have conducted, and the case study provided, describe what you think the opportunities and concerns for J.C. Penney’s are going forward. What would your recommendations be if you were an outside consultant hired to lead J.C. Penney’s to a solid foundation?

Review the results of your survey (see file below). Think about the material on pages 118-120 of the WK text. Write a paragraph about your relationship maintenance preferences. How do they influence the way that you approach your supervisor (or other authority figures), especially during potentially risky situations?

The cultural group that I decided to do was the San Francisco Vegan Society. You can find them on Facebook for more information. You can be very creative with this paper in terms of the three aspects you choose for my cultural group that were significant themes. You can also make up examples to support your themes. The data they’re asking for to cite is my field notes. The field notes is the journal I write weekly about my cultural group. I have attached different journals from 4 different weeks that you can use to incorporate into the paper. So basically right it from the perspective of you joining a vegan group and you eat different types of meat. This can be all made up.

In this paper, you will describe and analyze three aspects of your cultural group that you think could be significant themes in your final paper. You will identify these three themes and describe each of them in detail. Provide and analyze at least two examples (unique events that represent the larger category/pattern) of each of the themes. Include data (e.g. quotations or vignettes) from your field notes with your examples. Cite your field notes like this: (FN date: time).

You do not need to cite other course material; however, your description and analysis should make use of relevant concepts, such as empathy, group style, boundaries, implicit rules, norms, ideology communication patterns, values, identities, rituals, behaviors/practices, social processes, power and authority, meaning making, etc. Note: these cultural elements do not themselves constitute themes. Also, the point is not just to show you know these concepts but to use them to augment your description and analysis.

NOTE: This paper focuses on finding meaning in three aspects of your group’s culture to help you build up to the final paper (you will be able to use parts of it there). This paper should not include much reflection of your experience or comparison between yourself and the group (you will have a chance to do that kind of analysis in your final paper).

You must use the the following organization:

Begin your paper with an introductory paragraph that: 1) briefly introduces your cultural group, including the main difference between you and the group and how you participate; 2) briefly introduces the three cultural themes that you are describing and why you chose them (one sentence for each would be about right).

The rest of the paper should follow the organizational structure you laid out in your introductory paragraph by systematically describing and analyzing each of the three themes in the order they were introduced (with analysis of at least two specific examples for each of those themes). Discuss any connections between your themes as you go.

In your conclusion, summarize your themes and reflect on any connections between them; share what you plan to focus on in your remaining observations and analysis of the group: what would you like to understand better about your group now that you have written this deep-description paper?

Remember to use pseudonyms—not the real names— for your participants.

This paper should be 4-5 pages long.