Reference no: EM13852255

COMMUNICATION & CRITICAL THINKING INDIVIDUAL POST-WORKSHOP ASSIGNMENT

Task 1: Argumentative Essay

Word Limit: 2500 words.

Description: Construct an argument of fact, policy or value, challenging or supporting some aspect of the literature on communication, where communication is as broadly defined as the topics covered in the workshop. Your argument should be supported by at least the following form of evidence:

1. Evidence from expert authorities. Refer to the academic literature to provide expert opinion to support your argument. Use the academic literature to give context to, and provide support for, your argument. This will involve a deep examination of the specific aspect of the literature that you engage with.

This argument is being written for an academic audience. Consider this when you edit your work for tone, word choice, structure and presentation. Use the Harvard referencing system.

Guides: Turner & Muller (2005) has been provided on UTSOnline as an example of a well-written literature review.The library has an excellent series of guides available at https://www.lib.uts.edu.au/help/study-skills/writing-reading-speaking

Topics: The following are examples of arguments that you may wish to use. You are very welcome to argue a different point as suits your interests.

• Kick-off meetings are the most important moment of communication in a project.

• The power of social proof, as described by Cialdini (2009), can be used to effectively reduce conflict in teams

• Leadership cannot be taught

• Storytelling can have more impact upon project success than formal communication

• The need to establish your authority and expertise at a kick-of meeting is less important in environments with a low power-distance.

• Good project management has a greater impact on project success than good project leadership.

• Standardised communications planning templates are less important to success than critical communications analysis.

Task 2: Analysis of Essay Argument

Word count: N/A - use the minimum number of short phrases required

1. Simplify and standardise your argument into simple short phrases.

2. Logically structure them from reasons to conclusions.

3. Graphically map your argument using the techniques used on the second day of the workshop - refer to Critical Thinking slides on UTSOnline.

Hint: it may improve your argument clarity by drafting Task 2 before starting writing Task 1.

Example: Example of relationship between Parts 1 & 2.

Part 1 - argument

This short paper discusses Biesenthal's (2030) claim that Socrates is immortal.

It should be noted that I, the author, personally met Socrates on 9/5/2011 and had the opportunity to discuss his condition with him. Socrates confirmed that he was a man, and from my observations I also had no reason to doubt that Socrates was a man.

Review of the literature on mortality should also be considered in this argument. Sankaran (2029) asserts that all men are mortal. York (2031) makes a similar claim that all male humans are mortal.

Given this, it is reasonable to suggest that Socrates is actually mortal. Therefore the claims made by Biesenthal's (2030) research are incorrect.

Part 2 - standardised and simplified argument.

Because

A) Biesenthal (2030) claims that Socrates is immortal.

therefore

B) Socrates is a man.

And because

C) All men are mortal.

therefore

D) Socrates is mortal.

And because

E) Biesenthal (2030) is incorrect.