Final assessment instructions 2021 s2 PDF

Preview

Summary

not...

Description

PHIL/PHIX1037 Final Assessment Please read the following instructions carefully.

Submission Details Due Date: Friday, 5th November, 23.59 AEDT [Sydney Local Time]. The late work policy is as follows: ‘Unless a Special Consideration request has been submitted and approved, (a) a penalty for lateness will apply – 10 marks out of 100 will be deducted per day for assignments submitted after the due date – and (b) no assignment will be accepted more than seven (7) days (incl. weekends) after the original submission deadline. If you need an extension you will need to apply for a special consideration via student services: https://students.mq.edu.au/study/my-study-program/special-consideration. You can find further information about this in the FAQs on the ilearn site. If you apply for a special consideration please also contact co-convenor Jennifer Duke-Yonge ([email protected]) so that the staffing team can keep track of this.

Where: Via the iLearn site for PHIL1037. Under the “Assessment” Tab you will find a Final Assessment page link. On that page, you will find a Turnitin link. Submit there and follow instructions. Resubmissions are allowed up until the deadline but not afterwards. So please thoroughly double-check you are submitting the correct file.

Format: A Word file with all the required elements in a single file is preferred. However, a single PDF file is also acceptable. Nothing else. 11pt or 12pt font. Use headings for the three elements required. Also note: This assignment will be blind marked, so please do not include your name or student number on the file.

References: If you reference things, add a reference list. If you don’t, don’t. Preference is for Harvard, Author/Date referencing, but this is not a hard requirement. Just be consistent. For advice about how to reference using specific systems (such as Harvard or APA, etc.) please go to the MQ library resources. There is a quick-link to this in the FAQs on the main ilearn site for this unit. There is no “minimum/maximum” number of references.

1 of 5

If you want to reference the two doctor’s letters (see below) just make sure it is clear to the reader. For example, in text: Pangloss (2021) claims that …X… or “[quote]” (Pangloss, 2021). And in a reference list: Pangloss, K. (2021). ‘No Letter Submission to the Wandin Valley Council Local Interests Subcomittee’. But do not worry about this too much, just make sure it is consistent and clear to the reader.

Style/Layout: Use your own initiative. Is what you have done clear? Can your audience/ reader follow this without difficulty? Have you laid out your assessment in a way that makes it clear how you are trying to meet the requirements of the assignment? Good. You choose the layout, but think of your reader. For those who seek further guidance an exemplar template has been provided.

Rubric and marking: the rubric that markers will be using to mark this assessment is available as a separate file. We suggest that you have a look at this in your preparation for writing. The breakdown for the word limits for different sections are below. These are a hard limits. Do not write more than this. If you do write more than the stipulated amount, the excess will not be read by the examiner and any points you make here will not score marks. You will also be penalised (see the rubric for details). This will obviously undermine the clarity and analytical rigour of your writing and so it is highly recommended that you do not lose marks this way. If you find yourself going over the word count, reread what you have written and identify superfluous words that can be cut. Concise writing is an important skill to develop. And re-reading your work is highly recommended in general.

Warning: Whatever you upload is what will be marked. If your file is corrupted, unreadable, a draft version, something for an entirely different course, whatever, that is on you. Make sure you submit/upload a good quality, well formatted, final version of the correct assessment. “I uploaded the wrong one” is not an acceptable excuse. Additionally, since submissions will be marked blind, examiners will be unable to fix any issues in a practically feasible manner. So, PLEASE, FOR LOVE OF WHICHEVER DIETY YOU WORSHIP, CHECK THIS. DESPITE MY EXHORTATIONS FOR THE LAST ASSESSMENT A NONNEGLIGIBLE NUMBER OF PEOPLE STILL MANAGED TO MESS THIS UP AND WE SAW EVERYTHING FROM BLANK-PAGES TO THE ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS UPLOADED. THE ONLY THINGS WE DIDN’T GET WERE LOVE LETTERS, AND SHOPPING LISTS.

Academic Integrity: All assignments in this unit are individual assignments. Collusion (unauthorised collaboration on individual assignments) is a breach of the Academic Integrity Policy. If in doubt, contact a member of teaching staff.

2 of 5

Assignment Task Read and respond as instructed to the following: [1] Context Statement; [2] Our Task; and [3] What You Need to Produce and Submit.

1. Context Statement In the NSW town of Wandin Valley there have been growing tensions within the community about whether it should be mandatory to wear masks whilst in public. The Mayor of the town, Mary McDaniels, is considering implementing a special ordinance due to the ongoing pandemic. The issue is divisive and controversial, and Mayor McDaniels is aware that they need to handle this situation carefully – especially in light of controversies in other places in Australia about whether the wearing of masks should be mandatory. The Mayor is keen to manage this decision with a full sense of all the issues involved, and a complete picture of the interests and arguments from affected parties. To achieve this, Mayor McDaniels has set up an inquiry board and a sub-committee into public opinion and local interests related to this matter. The committee has called for submissions from the local community. As an assistant to Mayor McDaniels, you are a member of the inquiry. With an informed account of the submissions in hand, the inquiry will make a decision on whether a local ordinance will be brought into effect making the wearing of masks mandatory for the duration of the pandemic.

2. Our Task We have been assigned to assist the Public Opinion and Local Interest Sub-Committee of Wandin Valley Council, and you have been given the task of analysing two submissions from local GPs – one from Dr. Bernard Rieux (arguing YES), and another from Dr. Karen Pangloss (arguing NO). These two individuals represent groups with very different perspectives on the whether or not a mandate to wear masks in public should be enforced. Each group was invited to submit a short summary of their views to our sub-committee. We want you to take on the analysis and reporting for these two submissions.

Resources: You have been provided with a dossier of relevant material. It contains: •

A copy of Dr Karen Pangloss’ submission statement to the subcommittee.

•

A copy of Dr Bernard Rieux’s submission statement to the sub-committee.

•

A collection of possibly useful material gathered by one of our junior researchers, Fehross Pusheen (Fehross has provided some useful information here, however, it isn't exhaustive; do 3 of 5

feel free to collect some of your own if you want to. Don’t go overboard though). Fehross’ resources include: 1. A study by Ruth Barrett (2020) ‘Are Australian medical interns adequately prepared for the optimal use of personal protective equipment?’. We don’t expect you to give an analysis of the science here, but it contains some details that are discussed in Dr Karen Pangloss’ submission and is worth having a look at. 2. An article from The Conversation “Three Major Scientific Controversies About Coronavirus” by Dr Manal Mohammed. This seems to contain some details on data referred to by Dr Karen Pangloss in her submission. 3. A research paper – Abbott et al “Making sense of the research on COVID-19 and masks”. Again, we don’t expect you to cover or analyse the science here, but it contains some details that are discussed by Dr Bernard Rieux. 4. A news media article from News.com.au “Face masks Melbourne: Quarter believe requirement infringes personal freedom”. This newspaper article contains details about surveys that Dr Bernard Rieux is drawing upon in his submission.

3. What You Need to Produce and Submit. Mayor McDaniels is keen to make the best decision for the community. What she really wants from you is to know what the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s arguments are. “She is keen to know whether they are using any fallacious reasoning or misleading rhetoric in their arguments”. She is also interested in their use of the surveys they cite. There are three parts. Please structure your submissions accordingly and include all relevant information in each of the three sections. As a guiding rule, just ask yourself whether what you have written and how it is structured will be clear to someone else. If the answer is ‘yes’, then all good. If the answer is ‘no’, then take steps to make it clearer and easier for your reader.

1. Two Standardisations Standardisations of the arguments used in Dr. Karen Pangloss’ ‘NO’ submission, and Dr Bernard Rieux’s ‘YES’ submission. Make sure to clearly indicate the conclusions, cover all the supporting premises and their sub-premises, and indicate whether they are linked or convergent where appropriate. There is no word limit on the two standardisations.

4 of 5

2. Analysis A 1250-word analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the two arguments. You should include: a. Comment on the types of argument used (e.g. inductive, deductive, analogy, causal claims), and their relative strengths. b. Any problems in the arguments used (e.g. violations of rules, notable fallacies, unsupported or poorly supported claims, judgements on whether any research they’ve referred to is handled correctly and honestly, etc.) c. An analysis of the language, rhetoric, and possible biases used, tone and language (e.g. word choice, ambiguity, spin, jargon, certainty and doubt, etc.) As stated above, 1250 words here is a hard limit. This includes all the words in this section including subheadings if you choose to use them. Do not write more than this. This requires you to be concise and to the point. The Mayor does not want to have to read War and Peace, she just wants the core points.

3. Recommendation A 250-word “recommendation summary briefing” for the Head of Inquiry Board. How should Mayor McDaniels judge the two submissions? Which is the stronger case and why? What points should she focus on in making her decision? As stated above, 250 words here is a hard limit. Do not write more than this. Again, the Mayor’s time is limited so focus on the main and core points and getting them across in a clear manner.

Please remember, this is time sensitive, and it will be used to compile important public responses. It needs to be clear enough for everyone on the Inquiry Boards and subcommittees to understand it, it needs to be accurate, and it needs to be in on time. Hope to see a full report soon.

If you have any further questions, please use the appropriate assessment questions forum. Good luck

5 of 5...