Get help from the best in academic writing.

Current Definition Of Recklessness Within Criminal Law Law Essay

Recklessness is a problematic area of the criminal law, since there is no strict definition of what constitutes it. Statutes make provision for the presence of recklessness, but have yet to define it strictly, thus it falls on the hands of the judges to interpret what is meant by recklessness. It is therefore most easily delineated via case law. Judges have had to rely on “explanations in important case reports” in order to decide what amounts to recklessness. This has meant delving through colossal number recklessness cases in order to find out whether the case in question falls within the confines set out there. Realising this is challenging, the Law Commission have sought to remedy the situation, by releasing several working papers on the issue. One of them gives the following explanation: “a person acts recklessly [if] he is aware of a risk that…exists or will exist [or] …when he is aware of risk that…will occur and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk. [1] “ This assignment will start by putting forward a concise history of intent in recklessness. The development of the law in this area will be looked out with the aid of case law such as Cunningham [1957] Caldwell [1982] and RvG [2003]. This paper will provide an evaluation of the current definition of recklessness within criminal law. In order to identify and understand the concept of recklessness, intention needs to be discussed. The 19th century criminal legislation required that defendants had to have acted `maliciously’ and `unlawfully’ when committing an offence. The accused will act unlawfully if he fails to present a lawful reason for his act, he would be considered acting maliciously once he satisfies the level of Mens Rea required for the Actus Reus. The word `malicious’ introduces the requirement of Mens Rea. The statutory definition of `malice’ is, requiring an actual intention to do a particular kind of harm that in fact was done, or reckless as to whether such harm should occur or not. The accused has foreseen that particular harm might be done, and has gone on to take the risk. The word `maliciously’ means in relation to the law of England and Wales `an intent or recklessness [2] .’ Intention is the highest level of Mens Rea. Mens Rea means `guilty mind’ in Latin. Intention differs from recklessness; intention commands a severe penalty within the criminal justice system, morally intent is considered objectionable, adjacent to recklessness. Recklessness was first used within criminal statute with conjunction to the Motorcar Act 1903. Professor C S Kenny’s opinion of recklessness required actual awareness by the defendant of the likelihood of the particular harm. Kenny considered it an element additional to awareness of risk, indifference whether the foreseen harm occurred or not. Another view is that an individual is reckless if he takes a known risk, even if he ardently trusts the foreseen harm, will not occur [3] . In 1957 the case of Cunningham transformed the interpretation of Recklessness. In R v Cunningham D broke a gas meter to steal the money contained within the meter. Gas seeped from the broken pipe and into the house next door, where D’s mother-in- law was sleeping. The mother-in-law became so ill, that her life was endangered. D was convicted of ‘unlawfully and maliciously’ administering a noxious thing as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm under S.23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Cunningham’s conviction was quashed because of misdirection of the trial judge as to the meaning of maliciously. The Court of Appeal held that malice must not be taken as to mean ‘wickedness’, but as requiring either (1) an intention to do the particular harm that was done, or (2) reckless as to whether such harm should occur or not [4] . Recklessness in this sense means – foreseeing that harm might occur, and going ahead with the act anyway. This is called a subjective test, i.e. the accused is reckless if he realised there was a risk of gas escaping and endangering someone, and went ahead with his action anyway. Prof. Kenny wrote in his first edition of `outlines criminal law’ that, intent or recklessness had to be proved, as mentioned previously, he also stated that ` it neither limited to, nor does it indeed require any ill-will towards the person injured’ [5] . For a defendant to be guilty under Cunningham recklessness he must have consciously undertaken an unjust risk, he must realise that there is a risk involved. However, if he continues to carry on with his conduct, he is then reckless. The case defined a type of recklessness that the knowledge of appreciation of the risk of some danger must have entered the defendants mind even, though he may have suppressed or driven it out [6] . Cunningham is considered the first limb of recklessness the second limb arises from the case of MPC v Caldwell (1982). The second test of Recklessness, Caldwell created a new and wider test. D was an ex-employee of a hotel and held a grudge against its owner. He started a fire at the hotel, which caused some damage D was charged with arson. The old Cunningham test of recognising there’s a risk and going ahead anyway, was extended to include a second limb; namely that the D does an act which creates an obvious risk and, has not given any thought as to the possibility of there being such a risk [7] . The Caldwell test for recklessness is objective, i.e. the risk must be obvious to the reasonable man, in that any reasonable man would have realised it if he had thought about it. Although, it need not be obvious to the defendant: Elliott v C [1983] and R v Coles [1994]. Lord Diplock stated that the definition of recklessness in Cunningham was too narrow for the Criminal Damage Act 1971, recklessness, should not only include the Cunningham meaning. Lord Diplock stated that a person is reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged if; he does an act, which in fact creates an obvious risk that property would be destroyed, or damaged. Additionally when the act is committed he has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk, alternatively, he has recognised that there was some risk involved and has nonetheless gone on to do it [8] . Hence, for Caldwell recklessness to be satisfied, D does not have to foresee a risk, nevertheless takes a risk that would have been obvious to a reasonable prudent man. The It was deemed that after Caldwell whenever the term ‘reckless’ was involved, an objective approach would be applied to the case. However this changed with the decision in RvG, as a subjective test was applied, instead of an objective test. It was deemed that a subjective test would be applied because the Caldwell test was seen to be “a model direction which contained inconsistencies and lacked precision” [9] . The RvG case reinstated the subjective test from R v Cunningham [10] (Cunningham) and clarified the law on recklessness by overruling the objective test in Caldwell. Additionally one can note that from RvG, this subjective definition of recklessness would be applicable in all statutory offences of recklessness and not the definition which was illustrated in the Cunningham case. The House of Lords decision in RvG enforcing this definition of reckless, illustrated a significant impact by eradicating the definition of recklessness in Cunningham. One can note that this impact of the decision conveyed the problems with the definition of recklessness under Cunningham. For example, within the Cunningham definition, the test only refers to taking risks as a result and makes no mention of taking risks as to a circumstance. However the law commission draft criminal code adds an additional restriction on finding the term reckless. Additionally, under the draft criminal code there is the additional requirement of the awareness of the risk and that the actual damage caused might occur. Thus the reformed definition of subjective recklessness conveys a more accurate and broad scope of the meaning of recklessness, compared to the Cunningham definition of subjective recklessness. As a result of this reform, a subjective approach will be incorporated when assessing the term recklessness. Consequently it can be seen that the “House of Lords in G and another did in fact adopt the better test in terms of policy and principle. Also English law has progressed to the point where there is, almost certainly, now only one test of recklessness” [11] which is of a subjective nature. Additionally from the Cunningham case, the expression ‘Maliciously’ was replaced with the expression ‘reckless’ in RvG by ‘Lord Bingham’ in the House of Lords. ‘Maliciously’ was an expression which was formerly recognisable within the House of Lords. This proposal was changed because the term ‘maliciously’ was seen to be too narrow and with limited scope. However, the expression ‘reckless’ is considered to have a wider capacity for interpretation. Therefore this modification of expressions portrays a positive impact of the decision of the House of Lords in RvG. The reasonable adult was an issue raised in RvG from the objective approach in the Caldwell test. The issue of a reasonable adult was challenged in a previous case known as Elliott v C [12] . This case highlighted the negative aspects of objective recklessness as the person in question was fourteen years of age with learning difficulties. Evidently the risk must be obvious to the reasonably prudent person, and not necessarily obvious to the defendant. Therefore this conveys the problems within the Caldwell test as it does not cover everything, including individual characteristics. In this case the fourteen year old girl was guilty of criminal damage as she failed to consider the risk which would have been obvious to a reasonable person. In Hardie, [13] which came after Elliott v C, contradicted the judgement of the latter. Hardie became intoxicated after taking valium, believing them not to be dangerous. While under this influence, he set fire to his ex-girlfriend’s house, with her in it. Originally convicted, Hardie appealed and his conviction was quashed on the grounds that in itself, the taking of valium was not reckless. This is contradictory because his actual mental state was considered, which was not the case in Elliott v C. Subsequently this issue was raised in RvG, where within the trial, ‘Lord Diplock’s’ direction in Caldwell was used and disagreement occurred as the issue of the reasonable adult was accepted in being aimed at the children of ages eleven and twelve. From this trial, the case went onto the House of Lords, which unanimously answered the conflict of this question. The impact of the House of Lords decision in RvG illustrated great criticisms on the Caldwell test, in where it was noted that the Caldwell case was “based on fragile foundations because the law commission report was not referred to” [14] and subsequently was referred to in RvG. Additionally this impact of criticism upon Caldwell was heavily enforced by other law lords, for instance, ‘Lord Hutton’ illustrated his criticism nature by expressing “Experience suggest that in Caldwell in law took a wrong turn” [15] and agreeing with ‘Lord Bingham’. Therefore conveying Lord Diplock’s decision in the Caldwell case was incorrect. Furthermore ‘Lord Diplock’s’ decision in the Caldwell case has been criticised by many academics who have described the decision to be “Pathetically inadequate, slap happy and profoundly regrettable” [16] . Therefore the decision in the House of Lords in RvG illustrated these criticisms by rejecting the Caldwell recklessness approach. On the other hand, one can note that the decision in RvG in the House of Lords has had significant criticism on the basis of the outcome of the case. Academics have criticised RvG that the decision of the case should have been different. For example, ‘Professor Keating’ criticised the decision of RvG by where in his investigation, he revealed “69% of members of the public do regard behaviour such as that of the boys as criminally blameworthy [17] ” thus illustrating that the boys between ages eleven and twelve in RvG were old enough to appreciate the risks involved. Additionally, the House of Lords decision in RvG has conveyed an impact of a criticising nature. It can be seen that as a result of RvG, there are critics that illustrate that it will be too easy for a defendant to state that they have not considered a risk to others and therefore may by acquitted at their case. On the contrary, the House of Lords have reasserted the subjective test instead of the objective test seen in Caldwell and have also established that if the defendant is voluntary intoxicated, they can be convicted without the awareness of the risk present. In the RvG case, the House of Lords conveyed this to be seen as a ‘special exception’ in accordance with crimes concerning intoxicated individuals. Evidently this conveys how the House of Lords in RvG took into account of refining the Caldwell test due it being unfair, and achieving justice by taking into consideration, individual characteristics which weren’t present before in the Caldwell test. As mentioned above, one can note that the House of Lords decision in RvG illustrated criticism thus conveying a negative impact of the case. This can be seen as the RvG case only overrules the objective test in criminal damage, therefore the Caldwell test still applies today in certain cases after RvG, this can be seen in R v Castle (Mark Anthony) [18] , in where both the RvG and Caldwell tests were applied. Additionally ‘Simester and Sullivan’, both academics argue that “Caldwell reckless could still be applied in some offences” [19] , an example in where Caldwell has been applied can be seen by the “Data Protection Act 1998” [20] . Alternatively, one can suggest that there has been a positive impact of the House of Lords decision in RvG. This can be conveyed by where the courts no longer have to distinguish what type of recklessness has to be applied and the House of Lords in RvG has illustrated that the subjective one will be upheld in future cases concerning recklessness. Therefore this has allowed the courts to scrutinize the expression reckless more easily than seen in cases before RvG. An illustration of this can be seen in Eliot v C as noted above. In addition one can note that RvG case has ruled out a clear distinction between negligence and recklessness. It can be illustrated by previous cases that before the decision in RvG, there was not a clear distinction between both concepts. An example of a case is Chief Constable of Avon v Shimmen [21] . Within this case, it was deemed that a person who stops to think will still be liable if he realised there was some risk. Therefore this case illustrates that the Caldwell test made individuals guilty who previously were not guilty due to them being careless, but now after RvG are reckless. Overall, one must appreciate the House of Lords decision in RvG, which has allowed a subjective test to be reasserted when referring to recklessness and introduced a reformed definition of subjective recklessness. Additionally the decision has allowed a clear distinction to be applied when assessing negligence and recklessness cases. Moreover, the Caldwell test has been overruled in relation to criminal damage. Furthermore it can be identified above that there are both positive and negative impacts which have departed from the RvG decision in the House of Lords. Having analysed all of the above facts and cases, it is clear that the law on recklessness has been problematic, and often contradictory in the past. However the case of RvG has gone somewhat to remedy this issue and can be said to have succeeded in many respects. But there is still room for a statutory reform even though it may be vastly difficult to make statutory provision for all potential problems within recklessness. However, in the long run, statutory definitions of all that constitutes recklessness, and explanations of issues surrounding the topic, would be most useful, and save the judiciary time and money. Booth v Crown Prosecution Service (2006)
NGOs play a very important role in the field of international relations. The field of international relations has been mainly concerned with wars, struggles for power, and the efforts of countries to achieve best national interest. In the decisive issues of global politics, non state actors such as NGOs are increasingly becoming involved. Over the past four decades more scholars are suggesting the significance roles of NGOs in promoting international understanding and cooperation. Countries are not only losing sovereignty in a globalized economy, but they are also sharing powers including security, political, and social roles at the core of sovereignty with international, business organizations and NGOs. This results from the increased emphasis on private sector initiatives, declining role of states and the emergence of civil society. This shift among private sectors, states and civil society has brought a lot of challenges, opportunities, and issues for many NGOs. In almost every corner of the world, NGOs have risen to bigger prominence. Many NGOs that consist of nonofficial groups in difference nations have come together with the objective of promoting common interests through global actions. This paper will attempt to comprehend the roles of NGOs in international roles. Discussion Generally speaking, there is no internationally fitting definition of NGOs yet, therefore, it is important to analyze its functions. Due to information revolution and globalization that has made individuals live in the global village, human activity is less restrained by national borders ( ). For example, the internet has made people communicate, trade, and travel in ever growing numbers. However, this has led to more problems in the global society. Such a phenomenon gives NGOs many chances to exhibit their functions in international relations. The range of the work of NGOs is nearly as broad as their interests. Because they provide services; implement, shape, enforce, and monitor national and global commitments; do scientific, legal, and political analysis; and change institutions, norms have been raised. Some NGOs are organized in a bid to promote the interests of a particular group. Some of them are also established to perform a particular task and advance a movement. They normally function as agents of global understanding, as pressure groups, and as shapers of public opinion. NGOs differ in various dimensions, which are highlighted in literature. Such dimensions might be used generally to classify them. And such classifications can deem NGOs as global actors. NGOs as a group are multi-faceted and diverse. The scope of their work is nearly as broad as their interests. Their operations and perspectives might be local, regional, national or global. Some are task oriented or issue oriented; others are driven by ideology. Some NGOs have a broad public interest viewpoint while others have a more narrow and private focus. They range from poorly funded, small, grassroots entities to well supported, large, professionally staffed organizations. Some operate individually and others have formed networks to share tasks and information to enhance their impact. NGOs breed new ideas; protest, advocate and mobilize public support; do scientific, legal, policy and technical analysis; change institutions and norms; and implement, monitor, shape and enforce national and global commitments. In some issue areas, NGOs have attained notable authority in international relations. For example, Amnesty International is a human rights NGO that is mainly supported by donations from almost one million members in one hundred and sixty two counties. This organization initially garnered global prominence by orchestrating letter writing campaigns in 1961. Another example is CARE International which provides clean water, health care, emergency, relief, food and development assistance the poorest populations in the world. Almost half a million citizens from Canada, Australia, Japan, U.S, and international organizations as well as governments support its efforts. It has often been assumed that international relations theory is mainly about the study on the relations between countries. However, such a description of global politics has been increasingly challenged as many other actors, particularly NGOs have become more significant, which finds their roles and positions in international relations theory. This brings to mind, the issue of how international relations theory is of interest to NGOs. The answer to this issue might illustrate the important of NGOs in particular ways. The paradigms of transnationalism, pluralism, international regimes, collective social action, global government and interdependence are compound strands of theory that are related with NGOs. But, these paradigms overlap to a certain extent. To explain the phenomenon of the emerging roles in international relations theory, it is crucial to explain the connection between transnationalism and NGOs. In the transnational paradigm, NGOs operate at global level alongside governments increasing more adversity to the process of policymaking, monitoring the gap between governmental practice and governmental eloquence in policy implementation. According to ( ), transnational relation focuses on interactions among non-governmental bodies and on relations between states and among states and non-governmental entities. Simply put, transnational networks have the capacity to become thornier and important that involve inquiring how interactively and independently NGOs and governments seek to realize their objectives and cope with the issues, which challenge them. In the context of international policy and law, NGOs perform various activities and functions. International policy making is normally characterized by numerous uncertainties. These might include scientific uncertainties about the causes and effects of a problem and potential reactions tactics as well as political and legal uncertainties about the available means and ways to accomplish desired policy goals and their implications ( ). Uncertainty also often exists about the behavioral effects for example, on sub-national actors like consumers and industry, and so forth, as well as the efficiency of implementation of international rules when these rules have been adopted ( ). Even though the precautionary principle might provide an adequate basis to take measures even if full scientific certainty lacks uncertainty is still in numerous cases a significant element that hinders the adoption of effective measures and policies. NGOs play an imperative role in tackling these uncertainties, thus enhancing the knowledge base for global governance. NGOs compile, gather, and disseminate significant information to the broader public and policy makers. In addition to this, independent research institutes and expert NGOs like the World Watch Institute, World Resources Institute, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Tata Energy Research Institute, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, and others are especially active in this respect. In the area of implementation review, a well known example is the TRAFFIC international that has frequently provided information to Parties in counties where illegal trade in endangered species occurs, and it has been officially recognized as a source of relevant information ( ). In providing relevant assessments and information, NGOs often play a substantial role in taking up political issues, which need to be addressed in global politics in global politics. Also, in practice, NGOs enhance the knowledge base in global policy making by distributing and organizing information material through conferences and other activities. These channels and activities of influence, are generally recognized under international law, wither implicitly or explicitly through established practice. NGOs also organize seminars, workshops and conferences independently of inter-governmental meetings that are aimed at enhancing relevant knowledge ( ). Other than providing information, NGOs also partake in and directly influence the global policy making process through advocacy and lobbying. In this context, advocacy refers to the NGOs publicly acting as advocates of their cause by using their formal position in an institution. On the other hand, lobbying can be best understood as the process of unofficially influencing decision makers in meetings’ corridors. By doing so, they employ various activities as well as both formal and informal channels of influence ( ). Expert conferences or side events during inter-governmental conferences can provide an informal forum for discussion with related government delegates and to create negotiating options that might be taken up by individual delegations. Furthermore, there are other opportunities for informal face-to-face contacts between government representatives and NGOs that exist in numerous settings, for instance, in the corridors of conference buildings during official meetings ( ). Contemporary communication technologies like mobile phones and the internet enable representatives from NGOs to communicate and stay in contact with government delegates even during closed negotiating sessions ( ). From an analytical perspective, two different bases for advocacy and lobbying by NGOs can be discerned: political expertise and pressure, which in fact often happen in combination. The political pressure PINGOs (Public Interest NGOs) can have an effect on decision makers in global or international institutions and is a function of the size of their membership and their capacity to manage public support for their grounds outside the official negotiations such as through public information campaigns and media, letter writing, protest boycotts and activities, and so on. As a result, in particular big NGOs can use political pressure as a basis for their lobbying activities. In contrast, BINGOs (Business and Industry NGOs) can rely on their general economic influence. Expertise as a basis of influence is less reliant on the size of an NGO. It becomes relevant where NGOs and governments widely share the same goals in the political process. Additionally, the examples of the provision of advice by NGOs based on their expertise are inestimable ( ). For example, during negotiations under the Basel Convention, Greenpeace advice to African delegations was decisive in attaining agreement on the prohibition of exports of hazardous wastes to developing nations. The function of NGOs as advisers who aid governments to comprehend and order issues at hand seems to increase with the complexity and number of problems addressed at the global level. Transparency of political processes is one of the essential principles of good and democratic governance. Transparency is one of the pre-requisites to make certain that political decision makers can be held responsible by the public. Guaranteeing transparency in global policy making poses a significant challenge because inter-governmental negotiations often occur behind closed doors. Global policy making also seems to be remote from public policy discourses, which are nationally organized whilst a global public does not exist. Under such circumstances, NGOs play an imperative role raising the transparency of global political processes and guaranteeing that global policy makers can be held responsible for their decisions. Reports of representatives from NGOs from inside global negotiations help divulge slacker behavior by governments. And, to this end, NGOs employ several channels and activities of influence. Also, some NGOs have played critical roles in providing order in conflict driven nations such as Rwanda, Bosnia and Somalia. They have forced governments to accept strict rules against the export of banned goods such as ivory and so on. Greenpeace, as mentioned earlier and other NGOs have proved to be more willing than governments to speak out against the violations of the rights of people in critical situations. Such NGOs are a testament that they significantly matter in the global society. In general, NGOs involved in the issues of human rights have more achievements and influence in their practice. For instance, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, the Human Rights Watch, and the International Committee of the Red Cross have tried to influence states by applying human rights principles in particular environments. Likewise, other NGOS such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace work hold states responsible of global environmental standards. There is significant evidence which reveals that the functions of NGOs specifically in the practice of international relations have considerably contributed a lot to the global society; they have devoted themselves to benefit mankind. Some of them have even received the notable Nobel Peace Prize such as Amnesty International, Institute of International Law, among others. Of the many approaches to evaluating the roles of NGOs in the field of international law, some dominant approach can be observed. For instance, the top down approach highlights conventional diplomacy where multilateral and bilateral bargaining is the main instrument ( ). What is more, the distribution of power and national interests are the main determinants of outcomes. Therefore, how NGOs influence governments’ behavior is critical to such an approach. Another approach is bottom up that focuses on grassroots movements, community organizing, local decision making and local participation. The strength of such an approach lies in its capacity to encourage locally designed responses to meet local needs. NGOs normally perform very well in such an approach. Conclusion Over the last decades, the magnitude of NGOs in international relations has tremendously increased. NGOs fulfill various functions by employing various channels of influence and activities in promoting international understanding and cooperation. Specified functions ascertain NGOs as significant international elements, which have an influence in all stages of the political process though not all activities and functions may be of equal relevance for every political stages. For instance, whilst improving the knowledge base and guaranteeing that transparency appears to be relevant to all policy states. Likewise, lobbying and advocacy in delegations mainly relate to the process of policy making while support for international organizations and secretariats is not entirely limited to any policy stage.
1. In light of the readings from this week (Beyer text, article by Vasholz on “Isaiah Versus the Gods,” and article by Oswalt on “Judgment and Hope”), write a reflection on your view of the authorship of Isaiah. Does the evidence best support the traditional view that Isaiah wrote the entire book or the critical view of multiple authorship? Explain your answer, interacting with the evidence from the class materials and the biblical texts. In assessing the issue, what are the strongest arguments in favor of each view? 2. What bearing do you believe that this issue has on the inspiration and inerrancy of the book of Isaiah? Does an evangelical view of inspiration require us to affirm the traditional view of Isaiah as the single author of the book—explain your answer in a response. 3. Read the website/article “Judgment and Hope” (by John Oswalt) and write a reflection (200-word minimum) reflection on what the article has contributed to your understanding of the unity of the book of Isaiah and the specific relationship between Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66? ANSWER NUMBERS 1,2,AND 3
BUS 520 Strayer University Leadership Discussion Question.

Leadership is the ability to influence others to achieve organizational goals. Organizations spend billions of dollars each year to improve the leadership skills of their employees. Leadership skills are needed within organizations to execute the vision, mission, and strategic goals of the organization.Visit the MindTools Web site and complete the short Leadership Skills exercise. Explore your strengths and areas for growth.Step 2 – Post a ResponseRespond to the following.What are your strengths?Where do you have opportunities to grow your leadership skills?Based on your assessment results, propose three things you can do to improve your leadership skills.
BUS 520 Strayer University Leadership Discussion Question

Nursing Role

Nursing Role. I don’t know how to handle this Nursing question and need guidance.

After reading Chapter 4 and reviewing the lecture power point (located in lectures tab), please answer the following questions. Each question must have at least 3 paragraphsand you must use at 3 least references included in your post.
Additionally, you are expected to reply to two other students and include a reference that justifies your post. Your reply must be at least 3 paragraphs.
Discussion board questions:
1. Think about the ethical theories and approaches in Chapter 4 and the moral conflicts you have experienced in the past. Have you used one of these approaches to resolving conflict? Which theory or approach have you used?
2. Has there ever been a time when you have experienced the dilemma of having to make a choice that you know will affect the well-being of another individual? Have you ever experienced moral suffering?

Nursing Role

FAU How Has Web 2 Helped Develop the Gig Economy Information System HW

custom essay FAU How Has Web 2 Helped Develop the Gig Economy Information System HW.

Read Case #14 – “Are you Ready for your Next Gig?” then answer the following questions:How has Web 2.0 helped develop the gig economy?Describe the e-business model associated with the gig economy?Describe the revenue model associated with the gig economy?Your submission should be a Word document of at least 400 words, with proper grammar, spelling and punctuation, including APA formatted references and in-text citations. All case studies are found at the end of the chapter in your textbook.Read Case #15 – “Stars Website Analytics” then answer the following questions:The questions are within the case once you read it?Your submission should be a Word document of at least 400 words, with proper grammar, spelling and punctuation, including APA formatted references and in-text citations. All case studies are found at the end of the chapter in your textbook.
FAU How Has Web 2 Helped Develop the Gig Economy Information System HW

Analyze how Milton and Rose Friedman, “Created Equal” works rhetorically.

Analyze how Milton and Rose Friedman, “Created Equal” works rhetorically..

ASSIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS: For this assignment, students should draft and revise a critical analysis that makes meaningful and significant use of at least ONE of our course readings below AND at least TWO outside sources (scholarly/ professional, peer-reviewed) discovered through research. Students should focus on applying theoretical perspectives from one of the assigned readings in an effort to understand, explain, and analyze an issue. please include sources link with locations. Please note: The readings used for Essay 1 should not be the focus of Essay 2. FYI: An exception may apply for those electing prompt 4 under “TOPIC OPTIONS,” below. In this case, a student may address an earlier reading in conjunction with a more recently studied one (see list of recent texts under “COURSE READING CHOICES”), provided that the student explores the earlier reading in a fresh and comparative fashion. PAPER REQUIREMENTS: Length: 3-5 typed pages of text for final draft Format: Typed, double-spaced, standard font (i.e., Times New Roman or Ariel), APA style TOPIC Milton and Rose Friedman, “Created Equal” Analyze how one of the above texts works rhetorically. For this approach, you may want to consider the text in relationship to the following questions: *What pattern(s) do you begin to notice by studying the details of the text? *What assumptions does the writer make? *What images does he or she employ? *What strategies does the writer use to communicate his or her point? *How does the writer attempt to convince the reader that his or her argument is valid?A good analysis for this assignment will achieve the following: It demonstrates a keen understanding of each of the texts being analyzed (including the outside source); it explains clearly how the outside source relates to the central text being analyzed and your argument:it explores assumptions, consequences, or the significance of a concept in the central text or the argument it presents; andit focuses on a point/claim that you make about the central text being analyzed.
Analyze how Milton and Rose Friedman, “Created Equal” works rhetorically.

Position Arguments

Write a one to two paragraph position argument. As you are writing your position argument and reviewing your classmates’ posts, you will need to consider the below areas.

Does the position argument present a controversial issue?Does the position argument assert a clear position with supporting details (e.g., statistics, examples)?Does the position argument respond to objections?

Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay

5.0 rating based on 10,001 ratings

Rated 4.9/5
10001 review

Review This Service




Rating: