Reference no: EM131261039
Assignment
Write a short paper (1,000-1,200 words, double spaced, plus a cover page and references) that critically analyses the ideas or position presented in the case reading. The major sections of your paper should include the following:
1. Introduction
2. Explanation of the Issue or Problem
3. Analysis of the Information
4. Analysis of Alternative Viewpoints, Conclusions or Solutions
5. Personal or Summarized Conclusions and Proposed Decisions
6. Conclusion
Follow these guidelines:
· Use the TGS Critical Thinking Rubric to guide your analysis: Critical Thinking Rubric, expanded.
· Use the TGS Written Communications Rubric to guide your writing: Comm Rubric Expanded Rev 032416.pdf.
· Draw in references from at least one reputable outside resource related to the topic to support your conclusions or proposed decisions.
Remember: Even though I have suggested the major sections for your short paper, you should still follow best practices for structuring the paper.
· An effective introduction grabs the reader's attention and sets the tone and direction for the rest of the paper. In reading an introduction, the reader should have a clear idea of what will follow. Supporting paragraphs move the reader from the general introduction to the more specific aspects of your analysis in the paper.
· The body paragraphs show how the information you are providing supports and relates to your thesis. Paragraphs across and within sections need to effectively transition from one to the next.
· Each paragraph should include a topic sentence, which contains the main point of the paragraph.
· The Conclusion (#6) brings to a close what you have presented in your paper.
o You have moved the reader from the general introduction ("The intent of this paper is to critically analyze...) to the specific supporting paragraphs (the details under headings #2-5), and now to the conclusion, which briefly summarizes the issue or intent and restates the main points of your analysis ("detail analysis of the issue of ... resulted in conclusions that indicate... and suggest proposed decisions to...").
Case Study
Responsibility for Accident
On June 7, John Schmidt, one of the company's employees, seriously injured his hand while pushing a large piece of wood through a table saw in the production shop. There is now a dispute over who is to blame for the accident, the company or the employee.
The injured employee claims that he followed all the company's safety procedures and that the company is at fault because it did not guarantee that the machine was as safe as possible for use. The company shop manager, David Donald, asserts that the machine was in safe condition, because if it hadn't been, the shop foreman, Harry Hiller, would have informed him.
The foreman, Harry Hiller, insists that the machine was maintained satisfactorily; he has produced the written maintenance records. The foreman also claims that prior to the accident he saw the employee "joking, laughing and goofing around" with his co-workers.
A co-worker supports the claim of the injured employee, insisting that despite regular maintenance on the table saw, it was not safe because the safety guard was poorly designed and didn't function well. The co-worker claims that shop workers informed the foreman about the issues with the safety guard.
A health and safety report determined and reported that the safety guard was poorly designed to protect operators in a number of circumstances.