You receive a document (linked below) by certified mail. After reading the document, prepare a response that summarizes
the approach you would take to the citations and penalties that have been proposed. Be sure to include the following in your
steps you are required to take,
options available to you,
contacts you would make, and
documentation necessary to respond to the citations and penalties.
Your response must be a minimum of two pages in length, using at least one reference. All sources must be cited and a
reference provide using APA style.
Click here to access the OSHA citation document for this assignment.
Information about accessing the grading rubric for this assignment is provided
2 page response letter to the document, apa format, with reference and title page
Psychological Statistics Class (Assignment is Partly Done follow bullet points like a check list)No plagarism what so ever i will dispute and give terrible rating if you have me pay for crap. Due by the 3rd will pay 5 more dollars for quick efficent delivery. Other than that price non-negotiable.Suppose you were going to create your own study to examine what course-delivery format (online, blended, or face-to-face) leads to the best performance in a psychological statistics class. In a paper identify the following for your study:What is your research question?What is your hypothesis (both null and alternate)?Is this a qualitative or quantitative design (based on type of variable collected) and why?Is this a descriptive, correlation or experimental design and why?What would be an example of a variable for this study that could be measured on a nominal scale? Ordinal scale? Interval scale? Ratio scale?Once you have collected your data, would you use inferential or descriptive statistics and why?Create a sample frequency distribution for one of the variables. Choose either a simple or grouped frequency distribution and explain your choice.Course Type: BlendedResearch Question: What Course-delivery format leads to the best performance in a psychological statistics class.Hypothesis: Blended or face-to-face courses will lead to better productivity and the best results for a psychological statistics class.http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/qualitative/qualquan.htm
Psychology homework help
Innovation In Public Sector Management Essay
Innovation in the Public Sector refers to the conceptualization and implementation of new and idiosyncratic services, products, processes and delivery methods which contribute to improvements in effectiveness, efficiency and quality (Mathews 2009). Lee Zhuang (1995) defines public sector innovation as new and distinctive ideas or activities which enhance the acts of visualization, creation, or production of new products or services that are aimed at heightening output quality and efficiency. In both Mathew and Zhuang’s definition, we are able to identify several key terms – “newness” and “uniqueness” – while observing the end objective of “improving the nature of products, services or general efficiencies”. In this regard, we can affirm that public sector innovation involves the introduction of new distinctive ideas, either to the current business activities or through the creation of new business ventures, with the aim of improving service delivery (Theodoulou
BIBL 104 Phoenix Religion Expert Studying the Old Testament Narratives Research Paper
essay help online BIBL 104 Phoenix Religion Expert Studying the Old Testament Narratives Research Paper.
5 pages 275 words eachuse bible as main reference(version) and intextReligious studiesSection: Studying the Old Testament Narratives Passage: 2 Kings 4:1-7 InstructionsOLD TESTAMENT NARRATIVE BIBLE STUDY ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONSGeneral Instructions:For this assignment, you will be studying the Old Testament story of Elisha and the Widow’s Oil found in 2 Kings 4:1-7. You will use the template below in order to complete a study of this passage. In your study, you will use the skills of Observation, Interpretation, Correlation, and Application that you have become familiar with through your reading in Everyday Bible Study. Refer to the “Course Policies” in the course syllabus for the formatting expectations in this course.Submit this Old Testament Narrative Bible Study assignment by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of Module/Week 3.Name:Date:Section:Studying the Old Testament NarrativesPassage: 2 Kings 4:1-7Instructions:For this assignment, you will be studying the Old Testament story of Elisha and the Widow’s Oil found in 2 Kings 4:1-7. You will use the template below in order to complete a study of this passage. In your study, you will use the skills of Observation, Interpretation, Correlation, and Application that you have become familiar with through your reading in Everyday Bible Study.I. ObservationA. I have read 2 Kings 4:1-7 in both a formal translation (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, or CSB)and a functional translation (NIV, NLT, or NCV). Highlight the correct answer. You will find a copy of the NASB, ESV, CSB, and NLT in your myWSB Library.o Yeso NoB. Identify the basic elements of the story you are studying1. Main characters: (List them)2. Plot: (50-100 words)3. Narrative structure: (50-100 words)C. List basic observations about this passage using the “Key Question” for observation.1. Who:2. What:3. Where:4. When:5. Why:6. How:II. InterpretationA. Determine the author’s main point. In 1-2 paragraphs (100-400 words) explain what youthink the author is trying to communicate in this passage. Remember, the Old Testament narratives frequently communicate truth by showing it to us in story form instead of telling it to us by way of teaching or sermon.B. Based on your answer above, write out one principle from this passage. You should be ableto express this principle in 1-3 sentences.III. CorrelationA. How does this Old Testament narrative fit within the metanarrative of the Bible? State whattype of story you believe this to be (creation, fall, redemption, or new creation) and explain why you believe this to be so. Your explanation should be 1 paragraph (100-200 words) in length.B. How does your principle fit with the rest of the Scripture? This principle is the one you havewritten out in 1-3 sentences in the Interpretation section. If your principle is a true Biblical principle it will be reflected throughout the Scriptures. Where is the principle discovered in this Old Testament narrative found elsewhere in the Scriptures? Your explanation should be 1 paragraph (100-200 words) in length.C. How does this Old Testament narrative reflect the person and work of Jesus Christ? Stateand explain at least one way that the principle of this narrative can be identified in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Your explanation should be 1 paragraph (100-200 words) in length.IV. ApplicationWhat points of application can be made using the Four Questions for Application? State and explain 1 point of application for each of these four questions. Your explanation for each of these points should be 1 paragraph (100-200 words) in length, write my essay.A. The question of dutyB. The question of characterC. The question of goalsD. The question of discernmentSample Essay PaperName:Date:Section:Studying the Old Testament NarrativesPassage: 2 Kings 4:1-7I. ObservationA. I have read 2 Kings 4:1-7 in both a formal translation (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, or CSB)and a functional translation (NIV, NLT, or NCV). Highlight the correct answer. You will find a copy of the NASB, ESV, CSB, and NLT in your myWSB Library.o YesB. Identify the basic elements of the story you are studying1. Main characters: (List them)a) Elishab) A wife of a man of the sons of the prophetsc) Sons of the widow2. Plot: (50-100 words)A widow comes to Prophet Elisha seeking help after a creditor threatened to take away the sons if she does not pay the debt. Elisha asks the woman what she has. The woman responds that she has a jar of oil. Elisha asks her to borrow jars. The jars are filled with oil. The man of God informs her to sell it, pay the debt and live on the rest.3. Narrative structure: (50-100 words)The story starts when one of the wives of a man of the sons of the prophets cries to Prophet Elisha after the death of her husband. The woman cries after the creditor comes to take away the two sons as slaves to repay the debt. Prophet Elisha asks her what she had in her house. She mentions she has oil. Elisha instructs the woman to borrow jars from neighbors and lock herself up in the house together with the sons. The instruction is to pour oil in each jar is miraculous after all the jars are filled with oil. The woman asks for an extra jar from and they reply none is left. She informs the prophet about the incidence. The prophet asks her to sell it off to pay the debt and live on what is left.C. List basic observations about this passage using the “Key Question” for observation.1. Who: Prophet Elisha, a widow, and the sons.2. What: The widow was in debt and the creditor wanted to take away the sons.3. Where: The story took place in Israel during the reign of one of the sons of Ahab.4. When: in 849 BC during the reign of one of the sons of Ahab.5. Why: The woman was unable to pay the debt to the creditor.6. How: The oil flowed into the jars.II. InterpretationA. Determine the author’s main point. In 1-2 paragraphs (100-400 words) explain what you think the author is trying to communicate in this passage. Remember, the Old Testament narratives frequently communicate truth by showing it to us in story form instead of telling it to us by way of teaching or sermon.The story of the widow’s oil teaches about faith in action during desperate times. The woman’s husband had died and left the family in debt. The woman had nothing to sell to pay the debt. The creditor was to take away the sons into slavery. However, she took a bold step to cry out for help from a man of God Elisha. She knew the prophet would help her overcome the situation. The lesson of faith is also exemplified when the woman goes to the neighbors to borrow jars. She was confident that something would happen to overcome the difficulty. Additionally, she also locked herself in the room with the sons as an act of faith.The story teaches us that despite praying or desiring blessings from God, it is important to take action. The action will be a demonstration of faith in Jesus Christ that he is able to overcome any situation. For instance, a Roman officer’s servant was healed by Jesus from a distance. The Roman officer did not doubt but confidently went home believing the words of Jesus that it is well with the servant. The story also reminds Christians that it is important to have faith in God at all times. The woman trusted God when the lives of her sons were at stake. Similarly, Christians can trust in God despite their difficulty.B. Based on your answer above, write out one principle from this passage. You should be ableto express this principle in 1-3 sentences.Faith without action is dead.III. CorrelationA. How does this Old Testament narrative fit within the metanarrative of the Bible? State what type of story you believe this to be (creation, fall, redemption, or new creation) and explain why you believe this to be so. Your explanation should be 1 paragraph (100-200 words) in length.The story fits in the metanarrative of the Bible by demonstrating the redemption of man. The redemption of man is clear when Jesus shed his blood to pay for the sins of humankind and acquit them of any charges. Similarly, the miracle by Prophet Elisha helped save the lives of the sons of the widow. It also relieved the agony the woman would have gone through if her two sons would have been taken away. Therefore, the story demonstrates the redemption of man. Redemption is a core theme in the Bible showing God’s plan to redeem mankind and keep him safe from all the plans of the evil one.B. How does your principle fit with the rest of the Scripture? This principle is the one you have written out in 1-3 sentences in the Interpretation section. If your principle is a true Biblical principle it will be reflected throughout the Scriptures. Where is the principle discovered in this Old Testament narrative found elsewhere in the Scriptures? Your explanation should be 1 paragraph (100-200 words) in length.The principle identified in the story is that faith without action is dead. The principle is reflected in various portions of scripture. For instance, the story of Abraham is a clear indicator of faith in action. When God asked him to sacrifice his son he was willing to the point of killing his son. He did not hold back his only son. He had faith in God that he would give him other sons or children even after sacrificing Isaac. He also demonstrated his faith by his willingness to sacrifice a son he had waited all his life. The story of Abraham’s faith in action is recorded in Genesis 22:1-19.C. How does this Old Testament narrative reflect the person and work of Jesus Christ? State and explain at least one way that the principle of this narrative can be identified in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Your explanation should be 1 paragraph (100-200 words) in length.The work of Jesus Christ is clearly reflected in the narrative. The woman or the widow who is in debt or suffering represents humankind while Prophet Elisha represents the figure of Jesus. The miracle by the prophet to save the woman form her anguish is similar to the works of Jesus on the cross. The works on the cross saved humankind from all the punishment they would have received for their sins. Additionally, the story comprises a prophet whereas Jesus was also a prophet. The prophet was willing to help the woman and similarly, Jesus is willing to help whosoever believes and save them from eternal perishing.IV. ApplicationWhat points of application can be made using the Four Questions for Application? State and explain 1 point of application for each of these four questions. Your explanation for each of these points should be 1 paragraph (100-200 words) in length.A. The question of dutyThe main duty is to ask for help from God or through servants, exercise my faith, and follow the instructions. The duty is also to seek the will of God and obey him always.B. The question of characterThe person I should become is to enhance my faith in all situations. I should rely on God in all situations despite the difficulties. I should also avoid harassing people while collecting debts.C. The question of goalsThe focus is to increase my faith and enlarge my dream to be where God wants me to be. I should also set financial goals to avoid debts.D. The question of discernmentI can continually identify the schemes of the evil one over my life or my family and seek divine intervention. I should seek help from spiritual leaders to discern situations.
BIBL 104 Phoenix Religion Expert Studying the Old Testament Narratives Research Paper
PSC 104 University of California Legal Analysis Hypothetical Fact Pattern Discussion
PSC 104 University of California Legal Analysis Hypothetical Fact Pattern Discussion.
I have a paragraph due today in 12 hours. I will post the requirements needed to write this paragraph. I will also include the previous paragraph posted by the professors. YOU WILL HAVE 30 minutes to answer the paragraph. You can send your answer in here, no need to put it in a document.
I WILL NEED YOU TO BE IN HERE IN 12 HOURS, so I can send you the question and you can send me the reply. The paragraph needs to be 7-8 sentences.
Read the attached document carefully, the question will be similar to the one from a year ago.
PSC 104 University of California Legal Analysis Hypothetical Fact Pattern Discussion
Contrasting Edmund Burke And Jean Jacque Rousseau Politics Essay
Two of the most influential political philosophers of the 18th century were Edmund Burke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. That is not to say that the two men shared the same philosophical views, however; in fact, it could be argued that they were on the opposite sides of the political spectrum, with Burke on the right and Rousseau to the left. A classic example that showed the differing opinions among the two was the French Revolution. Burke was not in favor of the revolution because he maintained that it would disrupt the traditions of France that hold the country together. Rousseau, on the other hand, was a hero of the revolution because he championed liberty and the idea that the people should be in control on how they should be governed. It is amazing to think that two philosophers, having very different perspectives on politics, can both be influential during the same time period. One of the core aspects of Jean-Jacque Rousseau’s philosophy was what man was like in the state of nature. In the Second Discourse, Rousseau explained that people were equal and free going back tens of thousands of years because there was no real societal organization to speak of. Since life was centralized on hunting and gathering food, people were, for the most part, equal in terms of societal stature. People were relatively free because no one had to answer to a higher authority, with the family structure being the only exception. Since people were free and equal, they were innocent and individualistic in nature. There were no outside forces that had a corruptive effect on people and there was no reason for groups of people to band together to form a society. According to Rousseau, the development of reason and private property rights ruined equality and freedom because they lead to the few dominating the many. As populations started to grow, there was a greater need for more societal hierarchy due to the complex nature of communities, thus less freedom and more inequality. Even though society today believes that reason is a positive thing, Rousseau insisted that progress brought the worst out in people. Rousseau was not necessarily arguing in favor of going back to the time of early humans per se. He knew that society was a point of no return, so he had to be somewhat practical. What he was arguing was to return to the roots of equality and freedom as much as practically possible. The way to achieve that goal politically, Rousseau argued in the Social Contract for a political system that put most of the power in the hands of the people and not the elites. Rousseau was a contract theorist, which meant that he believed that government should only operate with the consent of the people that it is governing. What set him apart from the other contract theorists was that he coined the term “general will.” What Rousseau meant was that all men should sacrifice their own individual power in order to give way to what he called the general will. In other words, all men give up some of their freedom in order to what is best for the society as a whole. The thing that is not so clear is the mechanism in finding out what the general will is. For example, is it the compilation of the opinions of individuals or is it something that is even greater than public opinion, such as having to understand human nature? Being that there were conflicting issues that faced Rousseau’s political philosophy, he kept on falling back on the idea of radical democracy. Since Rousseau was so distrustful of political institutions in general, he felt that people should always have a seat at the table when it came to determining policy. With that being said, it would seem that Rousseau was not in favor of having a republican form of government. Instead, as noted before, he was more in favor of a radical democracy. For this reason, he was a hero of the French Revolution. The revolutionaries read Rousseau’s work and were inspired to take action against the monarchy, even though Rousseau was not even alive when the revolution started. Abiding by the slogan of “Liberty, equality, and fraternity!” during the duration of the revolution, the revolutionaries took the cue from Rousseau’s political philosophy. The practicality question enters the conversation again, however, when talking about Rousseau’s radical democracy. Is it even possible for a country to function properly with every citizen participating? At what point would moving towards a representative government be too far for Rousseau? It would be interesting to find out the answers of these questions from Rousseau himself because he was more of a practical thinker than some people give him credit for. Rousseau’s political philosophy would seem to be paradoxical when you think about it, which is why the interpretation of his work is still being debating to this day. Edmund Burke is widely regarded as the founder of the modern conservative ideology. Although he did not believe in adhering to abstract principles when governing, his body of work clearly showed that he valued tradition and stability above all else. Similar to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, nature played a significant role for Burke when developing his political philosophy. Burke wrote that there are two natures. The first nature refers to: the idea that people love their families and that family provides a certain amount of stability and continuity, and that people are more comfortable with what is familiar to them. Burke’s second nature refers to the acquired opinions that people accumulate throughout their lives, such as habits and customs. According to Burke, the second nature is what cements society because it provides the traditions that are passed down from generation to generation. As societies and times change, people should always hold on to the traditions that are passed down because they form the foundation of stability. Another plank in Burke’s political philosophy is practicality. He did not believe that you can run a society based on abstract philosophy because it is not grounded in reality of the current situation. Rather, he was a pragmatist who looked at issues on their face value and tried to come up with solutions that fitted the time. That is not so say that he did not have any values, however. As noted before, he was a big believer in tradition and stability. Burke just argued that overarching philosophies cannot be applied the same in every circumstance because each circumstance has its own unique qualities. Burke is famous for his criticism of the French Revolution in Reflections on the Revolution in France. He was against the revolution because he believed that it would have destroyed France’s great traditions and that the theory and practicality behind the revolution were not sustainable. Burke did not agree with the revolutionists’ belief that government is created to protect the natural rights of individuals. Instead, he insisted that government was there as a stabilizing force so that people could live comfortably. Also, Burke believed that culture and tradition are more worthy in being protected than natural rights of individuals because they are much more long-lasting. Another problem that Burke had with the French Revolution was the idea that society can be formed from scratch. Burke asserted that societies cannot simply start over from scratch because he believed that leaders make prudent decisions based on the conditions that are in front of them. Installing a new political regime, in Burke’s point of view, is not all that practical. With that being said, Burke was not a contract theorist because contract theory provides that a new society can be created by man. Rather, he saw society as an invisible link that connected generations to each other, carrying with it the established customs and institutions. These lasting institutions should be protected and respected due to the fact that they survived, thus showing their adaptability to changing times. It can certainly be argued that Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke had very different views when it came to their political philosophies. Rousseau was in favor of radical democracy and did not trust societal institutions, while Burke valued tradition and stability above everything else. However, there are commonalities that the two did share. One is that both of them believed that times change, so adhering to rigid ideologies was not the wisest thing to do. Rousseau admitted that early man practices were outdated, so he was not so stubborn to strictly stick to that belief system. He did believe that the themes of equality and freedom that was present during the days of early man were everlasting enough to still be applied to his present day. Burke also acknowledged that the world does not sit still. Even though he strongly believed that tradition and stability had to be protected, he knew that life moves on. The reason why he argued for the respect for traditions and institutions that have endured several generations is due to the fact that they showed their adaptability during changing times. Related to the two men’s shared view of not sticking to a rigid ideology, Rousseau and Burke both had nuanced political philosophies; neither of their philosophies were black and white. Rousseau’s philosophy was so nuanced that it could be considered contradicting, as noted before. In the Social Contract, he famously said, “Man was born free and everywhere he is in chains.” But later on in the same work he argued for the general will and that sometimes men must be “forced to be free.” One could make the case that he was a libertarian, while another could equally claim that he was a totalitarian. Burke was nuanced to a lesser extent than Rousseau, but nuanced nonetheless. He knew that holding on to the past can only go so far, which is why he asserted that while times does go on, it is still important to carry on the traditions and culture that were passed on by previous generations. An interesting thing to note about Burke is that he was in favor of the American Revolution. This goes to show that he was not against all revolutions, again showing his nuanced approach to politics. The reason why he supported the American Revolution is because the colonists were not creating a society from scratch. The colonists, descendants of England, were committed to English ideas and principles. The only difference was that they wanted to a free and independent nation. The French revolutionaries, on the other hand, were hell-bent on creating a whole new political paradigm. As far as my opinion is concerned, I think that both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke contributed significantly to the field of political philosophy. Even though they had different thoughts on how government should operate, both of them had valid points. I agree with Rousseau that people should have a say in the way that they should be governed because history has shown that democracies have been the most peaceful form of government and it seems to be the most fair system (at least so far). But I agree with Burke as far as remembering your society’s history and culture because you would not be where you are in life if it wasn’t for previous generations. I also concur with Burke that society should not change too quickly, as it might cause instability that might do more harm than good. It turns out that I am quite nuanced with my approach to political philosophy, just as Rousseau and Burke were.