Unit 6 DiscussionIn the last 5 weeks, you have learned the following analysis methodologies: Descriptive statistics, probability calculations, normal distribution calculations, hypothesis testing, regression, and forecasting.In this Discussion, you will explore how you can apply these methodologies to current events.Research an article on a current event that centers on a controversial issue where the two sides are claiming opposing views. Then describe how you would analyze the situation to settle the issue if you were involved in this event. For example, if the article was about whether a proposed new law about gun control will reduce deaths, you may describe how you would use hypothesis testing to compare data from states where such laws exist. Or, if the article was about actions to take to reduce gas prices, you could talk about how you would use regression to figure out which factors affected prices at the pump the most.Please note that this Discussion should be limited to how statistical analysis can be applied to current issues. This is not the place to champion a particular position on the issue you are discussing or get into an argument about the various sides of an issue. Remember, you are here to analyze, not proselytize.Please use the template below in your answers, so everyone can easily follow your answers to all the questions (copy and paste to your post).Use this template for your Unit 6 Discussion.Summary of the articleBriefly describe the current event described in the article.Central questionWhat issue or question you will you be focusing on in your analysis? What are the conflicting points of view?There has to be some specific issue in dispute at the center (do tax breaks increase spending, what impacts healthcare costs the most, etc.), and the sides have to be defending a particular position.Do not use examples where the issue is based on opinions or morality. For example, “Should abortion be legal?” is largely a morality question and is not suitable for statistical analysis. Conducting a survey to ask people about their opinions is not the same as analyzing data and making conclusions.MethodologyExplain which methodology you will apply. Provide the relevant details. Where will your data come from? How will the results from this methodology answer the question you described above?For example, if you are going to use forecasting, explain how you will do that and how you will measure your accuracy. How will the forecast settle the issue? If you will do a regression analysis, explain what the dependent and independent variables will be. If you do hypothesis testing, what will the null and alternative hypothesis be?

Details:The literature review in a dissertation serves to illuminate the research gap and thereby justify the necessity of the study and the proposed study methodology. Though this purpose remains consistent across all methodologies, the structure of the literature review section of a qualitative dissertation often differs slightly from that of a quantitative dissertation. For example, literature reviews in quantitative dissertations are dominantly constructed around the variables while those in qualitative dissertations can be constructed in many ways. In this assignment, you will contrast the structures of a qualitative and a quantitative literature review and consider a rationale for those differences.General Requirements:Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:Review the Vangilder (qualitative) dissertation.Review the Wigton (quantitative) dissertation.This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.APA style is required for this assignment.You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Directions:Write a paper (500-750 words) in which you contrast the structures of the qualitative and quantitative dissertations referenced above and provide a rationale for the differences. Include the following in your paper:A clear description of the primary differences between the structures of the literature reviews.A rationale for the observed differences. What factors contributed to the differences the structures of these literature reviews?Please complete the assignment as required and please use the appropriate references , if applicable, and cite in APA 6th edition format. Please see the attached documents for completion of assignment.

Legal Memorandum #GEA2 Individual Assignment  Due Date: Monday, November 30, 2020, by 11:59 PM EST. Deadline Extension No late assignments are accepted.   Assignment Video Description In this final communication assignment, you will persuade and non-technical audience, a jury, that the statistical analysis that you have done provides adequate evidence on the case they must determine.  You must explain to a jury from the general population the case, how probability and statistics can inform it and what you found by doing your analysis all organized in a way and using language they will understand.  Part of this will be explaining why this approach can be used with confidence in addressing this question.   You will also demonstrate your ability to edit a professional document to assure it is clear, complete, and concise, following the direction provided in the Legal Memorandum Guide. Proofread and edit your pre-writing document for grammar and spelling PRIOR TO TURNING IT IN (you may use an external grammar tool to help with this. The Legal Memorandum Template is provided to make formatting the document easier.  This example provides some insight into the appearance of the document.  The document with the appendix is no less than 2.5 pages.  Assignment Preparation  Read the Legal Memorandum Guide You will be expected to discuss the elements of this assignment accurately. There are several areas in which students have had difficultly in the past that you may want to make sure you are familiar with  Be sure to make any claims based on your findings in a way that is accurate to what the statistical method allows you to know.   Be sure you understand what a class-action lawsuit is.   Be sure you are clear on the difference between the data and your evaluation of it.  Be sure to clearly outline what you know about the data AND why what is provided is important.  Be sure you clearly understand the specific car part you are discussing. If this is not a familiar product take the time to look up some information on it before writing about it so you can speak precisely.  Problem Description A series of seemingly related recent automobile failures have resulted in a class-action lawsuit (Links to an external site.), Szabo v. Reliable Car Parts Corporation being filed.  The ‘class’ in this case is claiming that Reliable Car Parts manufactured a part that does not comply with mandated performance standards in place to assure safe operation of vehicles.  The class was established as this part has been used by many manufactures in many models of vehicles for a decade, and therefore, involves hundreds of thousands of vehicles.  They are claiming the failure of this part has led to serious engine failures resulting in needed vehicle repair or replacement, for which Reliable Car Parts should be financially responsible. The part is question is a shaft with a copper-lead bearing surface that is manufactured for use in fuel pumps. The use of copper lead as a bearing surface was considered a revolution in the performance capability of this part when it was introduced.  However, after a decade in operation, the ability of this design to meet performance standards established for the safe operation of vehicles is being questioned.  The established standards require these parts may not wear more than 3.5 microns over a useful life of 250,000 miles of vehicle operation with the fuel pump using this shaft.  This standard has been established, as wear of the shaft bear surface exceeding this amount can result in catastrophic fuel pump failure in extreme weather conditions.  Due to the significance of this litigation, the Judge involved with the case, The Honorable Faeza Hai, has brought you in as an expert witness, independent of either side of the litigation, to provide the jury with the clarity that can be brought to the question by an engineering review.  At your request, she is providing you with data from a random sampling of 45 shafts of this design from a recent manufacturing run, which have been put through a test simulating 250,000 miles of wear.  The result of this test was and She is requiring that you complete your work with a high level of confidence, therefore you have suggested using a confidence interval of .01.  You are to provide the jury with which side of the litigation you would support and why in a written document that makes the determination clear and believable to them.  The document you are to provide is to follow the court's template and their Legal memorandum guide.  You will also copy the document to Miles Davis, Clerk of the Courts, Michah Bioano, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and Jay Grabow, Defendant’s Counsel. Data from Sample Testing Assignment Grading (be sure to review the assignment rubric) You will be expected to use the Legal  Memorandum Guide and example to include all the required elements in your memorandum.  A particular challenge of the assignment is the explanation of the method used for calculations; why it is appropriate, and which option was selected and why.  Before turning in the work you will review the document for flow at the sentence, paragraph, and document level.  You will need to complete a statistical calculation using the correct approach, arrive at the correct answer, and use the findings in a professional way to develop a recommendation. Clarity, conciseness, and accuracy -  While clarity and conciseness are a concern for the entire document, the memorandum subject line (RE), the question presented, and the brief answer will be closely evaluated on the accuracy of your statements, and the clarity and conciseness of your document elements.   (Be sure you understand the difference between liability and negligence.) Addressing your audience - Your document must be worded in a way where your audience will understand, believe, and be persuaded by what you say.  Each of the elements must be worded in a way that is complete and coherent to an outside reader who is likely not an engineer or statistician.  (Finding someone like that to review your document and tell you where they are not following your writing can help you with editing.  An outside reader may review your document for problem areas but MAY NOT do your writing for you.) Completeness -  All the elements shown in the Legal Memorandum guide must be included in the correct sequence and format.  This assignment is being submitted through the similarity review to trigger checks for plagiarism and at the same time will be reviewed for grammatical correctness.  Assignment Submittal.  This is an individual assignment for which each student must upload a document in one of the allowed formats listed on the assignment.  Documents submitted in alternative formats that cannot be opened and graded will receive a zero.   Rubric CA 3 P&S 2020F CA 3 P&S 2020F CriteriaRatingsPts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMemorandum Header contentThe first four elements of the memorandum - "To", "CC", "From", and "Date" - are completed correctly 2.0 pts All four identified elements of the header are completed correctly 1.5 pts Three of the four identified elements of the header are completed correctly 1.0 pts Two of the four identified elements of the header are completed correctly 0.5 pts One of the four identified elements of the header is completed correctly 0.0 pts TThe memorandum header elements are not completed correctly or are left blank 2.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe memorandum subject line (RE) descriptionThe memorandum subject line includes the case and a brief description of what you are doing for it. 2.0 pts The memorandum subject line is complete and well written 1.3 pts One element of the subject line is unclear 0.5 pts The memorandum subject line is missing an element 0.0 pts The memorandum subject line is missing 2.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe "Question Presented" sectionThe "Question Presented" accurately states the full case. The statement is concise, grammatically correct and stated as a question. The statement does not extend to information beyond the question. 4.0 pts The "Question Presented" is very well done in that is it correct, complete, clear concise, and stated as a question. 3.4 pts The "Question presented" is weak in one of the following ways: it is not correct, complete, clear, concise, or stated as a question. 2.8 pts The "Question Presented" is weak in several of the following ways: it is not correct, complete, clear, concise, or stated as a question. 2.2 pts The "Question Presented" is significantly weak in many of the following ways: it is not correct, complete, clear, concise, or stated as a question. 0.0 pts The "Question Presented" is missing 4.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe "Brief Answer" sectionThe "Brief Answer" is very well done in that is it is a correct statement of the answer, it completely describes what is being answered without describing how the answer was arrived at, it is clear, it is grammatically correct, and it concise 4.0 pts The "Brief Answer" is very well done in that is it correct, complete, clear and concise 3.4 pts The "Brief Answer" is weak in one of the following ways: it is not correct, complete, clear, or concise, 2.8 pts he "Brief" is weak in several of the following ways: it is not correct, complete, clear, or concise. 2.2 pts The "Brief Answer" is significantly weak in many of the following ways: it is not correct, complete, clear, and/or concise, 0.0 pts The "Brief Answer" is missing 4.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe "Facts" sectionThe "Facts" section completely and clearly presents the data that was provided in the project description. (This is the information you were provided before you engaged in solving the problem.) This information is presented in a way that a reader new to the topic and without and engineering or statistics background can follow and understand what you are presenting. (Present the information in a way that it flows logically for the reader. Include words that describe what the numbers represent when numbers are used.) 8.0 pts The "Facts" section is very well done in that is it correct, complete, clear and concise 6.8 pts The "Facts" section is weak in one of the following ways: it is not correct, complete, clear, or concise, 5.6 pts The "Facts" section is weak in several of the following ways: it is not correct, complete, clear, and/or concise, 4.4 pts The "Brief Answer" is significantly weak in many of the following ways: it is not correct, complete, clear, and/or concise, 0.0 pts The "Facts" section is missing 8.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe "Discussion" sectionThe "Discussion" section provides a description of how the student used the data provided to address the problem, why the approach used allows you to know what you need to in order to provide substaintial input into how the case should be determined, what you found doing the calculations, and what the outcome is. This must be accomplished in language that the audience for this memorandum can understand. Statistical terms must be limited, and with a definition or description of their purpose in plain language. This section must include an a plain language description of what this type of calculation accomplishes. 10.0 pts The "Discussion" section is very well done in that is it correct, complete, and clear (written to be understandable for an audience who are not engineers or statisticians). 8.5 pts The "Discussion" section is weak in one of the following ways: it not correct, complete, clear, or in plain language (written to be understandable for an audience who are not engineers or statisticians). 7.0 pts The "Discussion" section is weak in several of the following ways: it not correct, complete, clear, and/or in plain language (written to be understandable for an audience who are not engineers or statisticians). 5.5 pts The "Discussion" section is weak in many of the following ways: it not correct, complete, clear, and/or in plain language (written to be understandable for an audience who are not engineers or statisticians). 0.0 pts The "Discussion" section is missing 10.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe "Conclusion" sectionThe "Conclusion" section is included. This section synthesizes the entire memorandum and is clear, complete, concise, and uses language the audience will understand. 5.0 pts The "Conclusion" section is very well done in that is it correct, complete, concise, and clear (written to be understandable for an audience not comprised of engineers or statisticians). 4.25 pts The "Conclusion" section is weak in one of the following ways: it not correct, complete, concise, or clear, (written to be understandable for an audience not comprised of engineers or statisticians). 3.5 pts The "Conclusion" section is weak in several of the following ways: it not correct, complete, concise, or clear, (written to be understandable for an audience not comprised of engineers or statisticians). 2.75 pts The "Conclusion" section is weak in many of the following ways: it not correct, complete, clear, concise and/or in plain language (written to be understandable for an audience not comprised of engineers or statisticians). 0.0 pts The "Conclusion" section is missing 5.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAppendix is includedAn appendix is included that presents your calculations (typewritten). This presentation demonstrates you understand the method completely by approaching the problem correctly and obtaining the correct answer. The calculations are presented with all details included. 5.0 pts The Appendix is included, correctly, and complete (with full calculations shown) 4.0 pts The Appendix is included, but is weak in one minor way or it is incomplete 3.0 pts The Appendix is included, but is weak in several ways and/or incomplete 0.0 pts The Appendix is missing 5.0 pts Total Points: 40.0 PreviousNext