https://qualityhomeworkanswers.com/religious-studies-homework-help-16/

IntroductionThe first two steps in evidence-based practice are to identify knowledge gaps and formulate relevant questions. In this writing exercise, you will be doing just that, across three types of inductive reasoning. In addition, you will be applying evaluation techniques to determine how credible, authoritative, and reliable the arguments are.ScenarioImagine your boss has asked you to evaluate four ideas that she is thinking of using to implement programs. You must evaluate whether these are good ideas that she can safely and immediately green-light or whether further evidence is needed. She is anxious to move forward, so she will be unhappy if you reject a good idea; however, if you approve a bad idea, she will be equally as unhappy. She has specifically directed you not to do any outside research. You must evaluate the ideas strictly on the brief passages available. She also wants to know what specific kind of reasoning is used in each passageInstructionsUsing everything you have learned from the text, as well as any other information you have gathered from your searches related to this week’s discussion, evaluate the following four arguments:  (SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT)Chapter 8 Exercise 8.9 Examples 7 and 10Chapter 9 Exercise 9.9 Example 1Chapter 10 Exercise 10.9 Example 1For each exercise, address the following:Identify the type of inductive argument and any features of the way the argument is constructed that you find relevant.Explain how convincing you think the argument is.Does it have sufficient evidence to allow you to suggest that she move forward with the idea or does the argument have knowledge gaps?What questions need to be answered to close these gaps?Does the argument contain any information that adds to its authority, credibility, or reliability?You need to show your boss that you know what factors have to be considered in evaluating each type of argument and how well the argument meets the criteria.Writing Requirements (APA format)Length: 100-150 words per exercise (not including title page or references page)1-inch marginsDouble spaced12-point Times New Roman fontTitle pageReferences pageGradingThis activity will be graded using the Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric.Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric – 75 ptsYou’ve already rated students with this rubric. Any major changes could affect their assessment results.Argument Analysis (W6) Grading Rubric – 75 ptsCriteriaRatingsPtsEdit criterion descriptionDelete criterion rowThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTimeliness of Submission _6150view longer descriptionRangethreshold: ptsEdit ratingDelete rating7.0 to >0.0 ptsAssignment submitted by due date_1534Edit ratingDelete rating0.0 to >0 ptsAssignment not submitted by due date_7251This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.pts  / 7.0 pts–Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion rowThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExercise Identification _8559view longer descriptionRangethreshold: ptsEdit ratingDelete rating20.0 to >15.0 ptsType of argument correctly identified for all 4 exercises._8707Edit ratingDelete rating15.0 to >10.0 ptsType of argument correctly identified for 3 exercises._2731Edit ratingDelete rating10.0 to >5.0 ptsType of argument correctly identified for 2 exercises._4218Edit ratingDelete rating5.0 to >0.0 ptsType of argument correctly identified 1 exercise._5474Edit ratingDelete rating0.0 to >0 ptsNone are correct, fully developed, or present._3401This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.pts  / 20.0 pts–Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion rowThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvaluation of Criteria _4675view longer descriptionRangethreshold: ptsEdit ratingDelete rating12.0 to >9.0 ptsEvaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for all 4 exercises._9580Edit ratingDelete rating9.0 to >6.0 ptsEvaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 3 exercises._5494Edit ratingDelete rating6.0 to >3.0 ptsEvaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 2 exercises._4931Edit ratingDelete rating3.0 to >0.0 ptsEvaluates argument according to correct criteria for that type of argument for 1 exercise._3572Edit ratingDelete rating0.0 to >0 ptsNone are correct, fully developed, or present._1305This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.pts  / 12.0 pts–Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion rowThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeValue of Evidence _8912view longer descriptionRangethreshold: ptsEdit ratingDelete rating12.0 to >9.0 ptsProvides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for all 4 exercises._472Edit ratingDelete rating9.0 to >6.0 ptsProvides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 3 exercises._1684Edit ratingDelete rating6.0 to >3.0 ptsProvides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 2 exercises._7240Edit ratingDelete rating3.0 to >0.0 ptsProvides full discussion of probative value of evidence (strength of evidence) for 1 exercise._6233Edit ratingDelete rating0.0 to >0 ptsNone are correct, fully developed, or present._6466This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.pts  / 12.0 pts–Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion rowThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuestions _4233view longer descriptionRangethreshold: ptsEdit ratingDelete rating12.0 to >9.0 ptsForms pertinent question to fill information gaps for all 4 exercises._8473Edit ratingDelete rating9.0 to >6.0 ptsForms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 3 exercises._8677Edit ratingDelete rating6.0 to >3.0 ptsForms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 2 exercises._4065Edit ratingDelete rating3.0 to >0.0 ptsForms pertinent question to fill information gaps for 1 exercises._9267Edit ratingDelete rating0.0 to >0 ptsNone are correct, fully developed, or present._5660This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.pts  / 12.0 pts–Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion rowThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAuthority, Credibility, Reliability _7600view longer descriptionRangethreshold: ptsEdit ratingDelete rating12.0 to >9.0 ptsFull discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for all 4 exercises._534Edit ratingDelete rating9.0 to >6.0 ptsFull discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 3 exercises._1983Edit ratingDelete rating6.0 to >3.0 ptsFull discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 2 exercises._448Edit ratingDelete rating3.0 to >0.0 ptsFull discussion of authority, credibility and reliability of passage for 1 exercises._5632Edit ratingDelete rating0.0 to >0 ptsNone are correct, fully developed, or present._685This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.pts  / 12.0 pts–Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion rowThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescription of criterionview longer descriptionRangethreshold: 5 ptsEdit ratingDelete rating5to >0 ptsFull MarksblankEdit ratingDelete rating0to >0 ptsNo Marksblank_2This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.pts  / 5 pts–Total Points: 75.0