Refutation Paper wrong agency, vague mandates, no funding/staffing, lack of enforcement

You will be asked to work in groups of two to view a peer’s Power Point presentation from Project #2 and write a 2 page response that opposes the position taken in the presentation. You must use a minimum of 2 different credible sources in your response.

Your sources must be internally cited. Use the “How to Cite Your Sources” doc as a guideline.

The PowerPoint Presentation you created in Project 2 Part 2 needs to be uploaded to your group home page files area.

Your responses will be submitted individually it will not be shared with the student that created the PowerPoint presentation so you should not be hindered from being critical of the content.

Use this Template to construct a response to the arguments made in the PowerPoint presentation.

The length is 2-3 pages (Double-spaced, 12 pt font, Times New Roman, 1-inch margins)

Clearly type the number and label for each component and then type a narrative response for each section. Use specific examples from the PowerPoint presentation. (“She said….but….”)

Incorporate a minimum of 2 different, credible sources. These sources must be sighted internally (see How to Cite Your Sources)

You must address all 6 areas. Guiding questions are provided for each section to help you focus your arguments.

AREA 1: Attack Significance (Harms)

Did gov’t prove that this is a significant problem?

Can you prove that they problem is smaller in scope than the gov’t claims?

AREA 2: Attack Inherency

Did the gov’t prove that the status quo is flawed?

Did the gov’t effectively identify the type of inherency?

AREA 3: Attack Plan

Workability: Why won’t the plan work (wrong agency, vague mandates, no funding/staffing, lack of enforcement, etc)

AREA 4: Attack Solvency

Does the plan solve for each harm discussed in the significance section?