Economic Writing Assignment 1

By
Responsive Centered Red Button

Need Help with this Question or something similar to this? We got you! Just fill out the order form (follow the link below), and your paper will be assigned to an expert to help you ASAP.

Order Form

I’m studying for my Economics class and need an explanation.

You have one semester left to graduate and you have the finances to do a maximum of four courses. Three of the courses are required courses. The last course slot belongs to an elective. You have narrowed down your choices to three elective, all of which are very popular and very useful courses that you are very interested in. Decide on the course you want to take. Then use at least two economic decision-making principles, explain why you are making this choice.

-Develop a response that include examples and evidence to support your ideas, and which clearly comunicates the required message to your audience. Organize your response in a clear and logical manner as appropriate for the genre of writing. Use well- structure la sentences, audience- appropriate language, and correct conventions of standards American English.Discussion post
I’m studying and need help with a Philosophy question to help me learn.

(1 paragraph response to one of the following questions)
Between Raven and Anansi, which trickster do you find more sympathetic? Given tricksters’ amorality, is this even an appropriate question to ask about tricksters? Choose either Raven or Anansi and explain how he is either similar to or different from the Norse trickster Loki (as found in the Gylfaginning and as discussed in the “Norse Creation and Afterlife” and “Ragnarok” lectures). Choose either Raven or Anansi and explain how he is either similar to or different from the Babylonian trickster Ea/Enki (as found in the Enuma Elish or in the Epic of Gilgamesh). Bring up a point of your own! Be sure to develop and expand on it and to use examples.Quantitative Risk Analysis: nursing case study help
I’m trying to learn for my Management class and I’m stuck. Can you help?

Describe a data analysis quantitative risk analysis technique such as simulation, sensitivity analysis, decision tree analysis, or influence diagram. Discuss how you would use this technique to determine numerical values for your risks. You do not have to perform the quantitative risk analysis but should discuss the steps in detail. (just the highlighted section of attachment)

Week 4: Quantitative Risk Analysis (100 points)
This week involves a discussion of a quantitative risk analysis technique.

Describe a data analysis tool you will use for quantitative risk analysis. You do not have to complete a quantitative risk analysis but you should describe the tool in detail.

Complete the Quantitative Risk Analysis section of the Risk Management Plan template.Social Performance of Organizations: no plagiarism: assignment help philadelphia
I’m working on a Business exercise and need support.

According to the textbook, the current world economy is increasingly becoming integrated and interdependent; as a result, the relationship between business and society is becoming more complex. In this assignment, you will be researching a Fortune 500 company from an approved company list provided by your professor. Be sure to check the list before you begin.

Write a four to six (4–6) page paper in which you:
Specify the nature, structure, and types of products or services of your company, and identify two (2) key factors in the organization’s external environment that can affect its success. Provide an explanation to support the rationale. Suggest five (5) ways in which the primary stakeholders can influence the organization’s financial performance. Provide support for the response. Specify one (1) controversial corporate social responsibility concern associated with your company. Submit a reference page with at least four (4) quality references that you have used for this paper. Note: Wikipedia and other Websites do not qualify as academic resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
This course requires the use of new Strayer Writing Standards (SWS). The format is different from other Strayer University courses. Please take a moment to review the SWS documentation for details. Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow SWS or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
Analyze the relationship between business and society, and the ways in which they are part of an interactive system. Recommend ways stakeholders can influence the destiny of both business and society. Analyze the various primary and secondary stakeholder groups, their roles, and relationships. Compare and contrast the concepts of corporate social responsibility and citizenship. Analyze ways ethical challenges affect the multiple functions of the business. Use technology and information resources to research issues in business and society. Write clearly and concisely about business and society using proper writing mechanics.
Specific Library Resources to help you get started:
Access the Strayer University Online Library here. Introductory Search – Use the home page’s search box to keyword search many, but not all, databases. Targeted Search – Scroll to the bottom of the page for an A to Z listing of all databases. Float over each link to see a description of the database and click to load that particular database’s custom search page. Custom search pages include both basic and advanced search options. These databases are only partially searchable through the general search bar. You will have to search for them individually to find resources for your paper.
Nexis Uni – This contains legal information and would be useful to search for court cases in which your company has been involved. Video Explaining Nexis Uni
Research Starters are like the academic version of Wikipedia. Search on a topic to get an overview with links to other information within that topic. It will help you get ideas for keywords for your own searches and what you need to know in order to successfully write your paper.
Research Starters – Business Library Databases – Research Starters
Don’t stress over writing papers! Watch this video on writing papers and essays: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlgR1q3UQZE&t=9s. Topics include how to start your research, how to organize your research, how to draft your paper, and how to revise it.
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic/organization of the paper, and language and writing skills.

.

BUS475 Week 4 & 9 Assignment Company List (NO EXCEPTIONS)

Johnson & Johnson

Disney

Delta Airlines

Citibank

Microsoft

Lockheed Martin

FedEx

Costco

VerizonAviation legislation paper revised
Can you help me understand this Law question?

(irrelevant)

2. Discussion.

Summary judgment is appropriate when “based upon the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions, `there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,’ and where `the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” FDIC v. Anchor Properties, 13 F.3d 27, 30 (1st Cir. 1994), quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) and citing Gaskell v. Harvard Co-Op Soc’y, 3 F.3d 495, 497 (1st Cir.1993).[1]

a. Negligence.

The plaintiffs have shown (a) that Mrs. Lamkin was burned by hot coffee *32 served by Braniff and (b) that a defective machine was removed the next day. The question thus raised is whether the plaintiffs have shown enough to support a finding by a factfinder that Braniff was negligent. The Court concludes that they have not.

The plaintiffs have failed to offer any evidence that Braniff knew or should have known that there was a defect in the coffeemaker which would cause it to brew extremely hot coffee. Indeed, the plaintiffs have not even shown that there was a defect in the coffeemaker that caused it to brew extremely hot coffee. The plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to show that Braniff or any of its employees knew or should have known that the coffee which was actually served to Mrs. Lamkin was extremely hot.[2] In short, the plaintiffs have simply failed to offer any evidence which would support a finding of negligence.

The plaintiffs cannot prevail on their failure to warn claim because Mrs. Lamkin was aware that the coffee was hot. The complaint states that “Helen Lamkin set the coffee upon a folding shelf attached to the seat in front of her to allow the coffee to cool before she drank it.” (emphasis added) One needs no warning if he or she is aware of the danger as to which a warning would apply. Colter v. Barber-Greene Co., 403 Mass. 50, 525 N.E.2d 1305, 1312 (1988). Moreover, the plaintiffs have not shown that any Braniff employees were aware that the coffee was hot enough to burn Mrs. Lamkin; i.e., that any Braniff employees knew or should have known that there was anything unusual about which Mrs. Lamkin should have been warned.

In addition, the plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to suggest that the flight attendants on her flight acted negligently with respect to Mrs. Lamkin’s care after the coffee spilled. The plaintiffs have also failed to show how any behavior of the flight attendants after the coffee spilled exacerbated her injury. Finally, the plaintiffs have not offered any evidence as to how the seats, seat trays or cups were defective.

The preceding discussion effectively resolves this case. However, the plaintiffs raised two issues at the hearing on this motion which the court will also address.

b. Common Carrier

At the very end of hearing on this motion, after the parties had been heard at length, the plaintiffs raised for the first time the argument that a higher standard of care applies to Braniff as a common carrier. The Court, in its discretion, will address this issue.[3]

Braniff, as a common carrier, is subject to a high standard of care. The Supreme *33 Judicial Court of Massachusetts has stated that “the standard to which common carriers are held is the very highest, approaching that of an insurer.” Worcester Ins. Co. v. Fells Acre Day School, Inc., 408 Mass. 393, 558 N.E.2d 958, 968 (1990). See O’Malley v. Putnam Safe Deposit Vaults, Inc., 17 Mass.App. 332, 458 N.E.2d 752, 758 (1983). But while the standard may “approach” that of an insurer, the Supreme Judicial Court has not gone so far as to rule that a common carrier is in fact strictly liable for accidents which befall its passengers. The court has stated that “the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers, nor is it obliged by law to foresee and to guard against unlikely dangers and improbable harms.” Quigley v. Wilson Line of Massachusetts, 338 Mass. 125, 154 N.E.2d 77, 79 (1958). See Holton v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 303 Mass. 242, 21 N.E.2d 251, 251 (1939); Intriligator v. Goldberg, 299 Mass. 333, 12 N.E.2d 730, 731 (1938). None of the Supreme Judicial Court’s decisions has altered Massachusetts law to the effect that, in general, the mere occurrence of an accident by itself will not support a finding of negligence. Holton, 21 N.E.2d at 251; Wilson v. Colonial Air Transport, 278 Mass. 420, 180 N.E. 212, 214 (1932). The common carrier standard of care, thus, cannot parlay the plaintiff’s mishap into liability for negligence in the absence of some proof other than that an accident happened.

c. Res Ipsa Loquitor.

At the hearing on this motion, but not in their brief, the plaintiffs suggested that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would allow this case to go to a jury. Again, the Court, in its discretion, will review the law concerning this claim.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor “permits a trier of fact to draw an inference of negligence in the absence of a finding of a specific cause of the occurrence when an accident is of the kind that does not ordinarily happen unless the defendant was negligent in some respect and other responsible causes including conduct of the plaintiff, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence.” Enrich v. Windmere Corp., 416 Mass. 83, 616 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (1993). See Wilson v. Honeywell, Inc., 409 Mass. 803, 569 N.E.2d 1011, 1013 (1991). In res ipsa loquitor cases, “the jury must be able to find, either by expert evidence or by their own common knowledge, that the mere occurrence of the accident shows negligence as a cause.” Enrich, 616 N.E.2d at 1085.

Neither the plaintiffs’ expert nor common knowledge supports a finding that the mere occurrence of this accident shows negligence. Mr. Chapdelaine, the expert offered by the plaintiff, by self-acknowledgement is not qualified to testify as to the cause of the accident. He has no particular expertise regarding the proper functioning and maintenance of a coffee machine. As noted above, he admitted that he has no specialized knowledge which would permit him to render an opinion on the proper temperature at which coffee should be served on an airplane. Nor does Mr. Chapdelaine have any expertise regarding the procedure for in-flight service. See Enrich, 616 N.E.2d at 1085.

Moreover, the Court is not persuaded that a jury may reasonably infer negligence from their general knowledge of practical affairs merely because a passenger is burned by hot coffee. A jury would have no way of knowing whether the coffee served to the plaintiff was hotter than coffee customarily served on airplanes or in places of public accommodation. See Huppe, 497 N.Y.S.2d at 308. Thus, a conclusion that the brewing of extremely hot coffee was due to negligence would be based on speculation and guesswork.

Because the plaintiffs have failed to submit sufficient evidence to allow a jury to conclude that Braniff acted negligently, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

SO ORDERED.

How to create Testimonial Carousel using Bootstrap5

Clients' Reviews about Our Services