Author: superadmin

I am attaching a document that has two lesson plans, a original and another that’s just like but has modifications added to it in red. I would like you to write a rational for those modifications. I attaching the rubric as well. Please be detailed as possible it’s supposed to be a half a page for each modification but there is a lot of modifications. So I would like you to divide it up by section. list the modifications in the instructional sections, the guided section and the independent sections then write a rationale for that modifications, but per do it it per section. If you need more than four pages that’s perfectly fine, it just needs to be a thorough rationale for each modification, divided up by sections (Instructional, guided, independent). So, for example, in the independent section (make that the heading,) list all the modifications (they’re in red) then write a thorough rationale for them each of them. Then do the same for the other two sections. Remember, all modification are on the second lesson plan, and are in red. If you think some additional modifications should be added, please feel free to go ahead and add them, but note you will have to explain them in the rationale. If you need sources for your rationale, which is perfectly fine, please make them scholarly. I noted 5 sources but please add as many as you need to justify your rationales. Again, please follow the rubrics instruction. If you need any information, please let me know. Thank you!

• This is a discussion board between us the students, ensure you do not repeat what you already discussed before.
• Instructions are attached within the uploaded document. Ensure you read and carefully follow the 10-point sections on “Important and critical Notes research modules”. Unit readings attached FYI.
Don’t forget to:
1. apply Harvard format for the referencing (URL + access times)
2. Add question at end of each post
3. Each post should have its own refenced at end of it and
4. Stay within word counts of 305 and list it after your question.

Week 10 Discussion

This week’s discussion will provide you with an opportunity to apply Froeb’s analytic method.

Read the example in the discussion instructions while keeping in mind the following questions:

Who made the bad decision?
What information did they have? And was it good, bad, or unclear?
What was their incentive?
Instructions
Read the following and then respond to the discussion prompt.

Intel made large loyalty payments to HP in exchange for HP buying most of their chips from Intel instead of rival AMD. AMD sued Intel under the antitrust laws, and Intel settled the case by paying $1.25 billion to AMD.

Address the following in your discussion post:

What incentive conflict was being controlled by these loyalty payments?
What advice did Intel ignore when they adopted this practice?
How did the Robinson-Patman Act apply to their practice?
Why did they ignore the advice?
Note: In your discussion posts for this course, do not rely on Wikipedia, Investopedia, or any similar website as a reference or supporting source.

Set your margins at one inch all around. Your response should be exactly one full page, single space, justified margins, and with proper formatting. Make sure you check your grammar, content, clarity, spellings, and sentence constructions. I will include them in my grading of your essay

Please see Instructions

See attached
Please use TARGET MARKET
Men 25-35 and women 25- 35
I am assuming you may use as many sources as needed so I didn’t write sources on order because I have no idea

This assignment is not an essay nor academic righting paper. This assignment is for a discussion panel in my SOCIOLOGY class. The assignment is easy. You must do the attached discussion post highlighted in yellow, and respond to two (2) other posted discussion posts from two different classmates; BOTH highlighted in blue.

Here is the book we are using during this course is:

https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-2e

The requirements for this discussion post is attached, along with the discussion scoring rubric. The 2 discussion posts from my classmates are included in the pdf file with the requirements.

This assignment is not an essay nor academic righting paper. This assignment is for a discussion panel in my SOCIOLOGY class. The assignment is easy. You must do the attached discussion highlighted in yellow, and respond to two (2) other posted discussion posts from two different classmates; BOTH highlighted in green.

Here is the book we are using during this course is:

https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-2e

The requirements for this discussion post is attached, along with the discussion scoring rubric.

The 2 discussion posts from my classmates are included in the pdf file with the requirements.

Read all the information and instructions contained in this page. Some information may not be relevant to you, but it is still your responsibility to read throughout to make sure you meet all the expectations.

Using the sources that you reported on your annotated bibliography, you will have to elaborate on one topic throughout your paper. You are welcome to choose your own topic. In case you need assistance in selecting a topic, you will be provided with general prompts throughout the content module. It is your responsibility to review the content modules to identify the prompts (use the content pages to identify topics to write about, e.g., Hobbes’ view of the Social Contract, Pico della Mirandola’s view of human nature). Two additional prompts are provided below.

Expectations

Your paper should focus on one primary topic, and up to three subtopics. All of the subtopic must contribute to the presentation of the primary topic. You must use at least one substantive quote (3-8 lines) when discussing the central notions of your topic.
Your paper must include an introduction stating what is your main topic, and stating what are the different parts in which your presentation of that topic will proceed througout your paper. This paper should tell your reader about the organization of your paper, NOT a background history about the philosopher’s life.
The body of your text must be organized in thematic paragraphs (at least, but most likely more than, 6 paragraphs of at least 6 well-written sentences each). This means that each paragraph should elaborate one primary idea, that relates to the primary topic. Make sure your paper is at least 750 words in lengt.
You paper must include a conclusion, in which you summarize in a punctual manner what you have established in your discussion of the topic. Your conclusion must NOT BE a commentary on the value of the topic you wrote about. Instead it should bring together all the main ideas, and restate them in a straightforward and concise manner. It must read along the lines of the following structure: “In this paper I have explained idea X, by showing how ideas W (state W concisely), Y (state Y concisely), and Z (state Z concisely) contribute to understanding the idea that X (state thesis about X concisely) “.
Your paper must include the word count (papers without word count will be decuted 1 pt)
Your paper must be submitted in .doc, or .docx if you would like to receive feedback. Otherwise you will only receive a grade following the rubric.

Review your paper according to the rubric before submiting to make sure you are meeting all the expectations for the grade you wish to obtain.

— 000 —-

If you receive feedback on your annotated bibliography, stating that the texts you selected are not appropriate for your midterm paper here you have two options to choose from to write your midterm paper:

Option 1. Pico della Mirandolla’s view of human nature

What does Pico della Mirandola say about human beings? Is human nature fixed or changeable? How distinct is human nature from divine nature? How distinct is human nature from other creatures and things? Is there a limit to the potentialities of human nature? If so, what are such limitations?

Option 2. Human Growht and/or Acceptance of Reality in Epictetus’ Enchiridion

What is Epictetus advice on telling apart what we, as human beings, have power over, and what we do not? What can human beings can do to improve themselves and live more fully their lives? How can humans become more confortable or content inspite of facing adversities and hardships in life?

Primary Source

Enchiridion by Epictetus (link to the text via Project Gutenberg’s site).

Secondary source 1

Long, A. A. (2006). From Epicurus to Epictetus : Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy. Clarendon Press (Links to an external site.). Specifically, chapter 18. (Link to E-book via HCC Library)

Secondary source 2

Epictetus (55–135 C.E.) by Seddon, K. H. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, https://www.iep.utm.edu/, June 14th, 2020.

Please write a reply to Nicholas’ post. Attached are Nicholas’ Post, instructions, grading rubric, and class syllabus. Please review attached documents carefully in order to properly write a reply. Thank you in advance.