Get help from the best in academic writing.

Drexel University Value Proposition Recommendation Essay

Drexel University Value Proposition Recommendation Essay.

I’m working on a marketing writing question and need a sample draft to help me understand better.

Recommend a NEW “Value Proposition” (VP) for your project firm that expresses a; (1) brand promise; (2) key benefits; and (3) that offers value that is differentiated from the competition. Also, identify a competitor’s current (not new) VP. Make sure that your firm’s recommended value proposition is a concise sentence that satisfies all three VP criteria above. Hints; Begin your response with the recommended VP for your project firm (don’t meander). Support your VP recommendation with which target and secondary customer segments it will appeal to. Also, understand that your VP (for market consumption) is not a positioning statement (used for internal guidance). Company: GrubHub
Drexel University Value Proposition Recommendation Essay

Chemistry Reaction, Thermochemistry homework.

Consider the reaction following reaction. Answer question B.6 H2(g) + P4(g) → 4 PH3(g)(a) Using data from Appendix C, calculate ΔG° at 298 K. Given: 29.2 kJ(b) Calculate ΔG° at 298 K if the reaction mixture consists of 7.8 atm of H2, 0.049 atm of P4, and 0.24 atm of PH3.
Chemistry Reaction, Thermochemistry homework

Introduction Singapore developed the tripartite model to guide industrial relations and human resource management approaches. The model has facilitated the resolution of many adversaries and confrontations in human resource problems in the nation since 1960. Fair Employment Practices (2007) says that the labour sector has been dominated by confrontations akin to political instabilities, high unemployment levels, frequent labour strikes, and incidents of social unrest. After independence in 1965, Singapore’s key challenges in industrial relations involved sustenance and attraction of foreign investments in an effort to ensure job creation and/or realise sustained economic growth. In response to this challenges, various social partners came together to derive strategies for transforming the confrontational approaches in labour relations to peaceful approaches to mitigate economic costs of labour strikes. Consequently, the tripartite model was developed. The model balances employer corporate goals, worker aspirations, and the government’s desire for long-term prosperity and stability. This paper identifies the parties, which are involved in the model. The goal is to discuss how they have helped to make the model work over the years. Literature Review The body of industrial relations focuses on resolving conflicts that arise between employees and an employer, whether an organisation or a state, through a requisite professional recruitment and placement body from a specific industry. Within an organisation, the human resource department handles issues that relate to employees, including enhancing motivation. The noble functions of the HR department are inspired by the perceptions that people who work for an organisation or a state agency act as the source of competitive advantage by noting that they cannot be optimised using economic theories in a manner that is similar to other factors of production such as capital and land (Ollapally
Production of Pure Lipases. Most Rhizopus lipases described in the literature are produced by their host cells in very small amounts, which is not suitable for large-scale industrial applications. Another drawback of working with native microorganisms is that Rhizopus sp. usually produces different isolipases with different biocatalytic properties, which complicates biocatalytic application with unwanted side effects caused by unrelated enzymes (67). Thus, in order to implement more industrial lipase applications, one of the most promising strategies is to produce heterologous lipases in a host microorganism which have the advantages to minimize the complexity of the bioprocess, to facilitate the more economic production of large quantities of pure lipases and to reduce costs (68). Rhizopus species was mainly divided into three groups, including R. oryzae, R. microsporus, R. stolonifer (69). Until now, the lipase genes from all these three groups have been cloned. Consistent with the proposal that many Rhizopus isolates are actually the same organism (69), nearly complete identities were observed in the lipase genes from the genus Rhizopus. In the R. oryzae group, lipases from R. niveus IFO 9759 (70) (71) (72), R. delemar ATCC34612 (73) (74) and R. javanicus (75) have identical amino acid sequences, and the lipases from R. oryzae ATCC 853 (76, 77) (78) and R. arrhizus L-03-R-1(79) differ by only several substitutions. The lipase from R. stolonifer (GenBank No. AAZ66864.1) and R. chinensis (GenBank No. ABN59381.2)(80) were of about 80% amino acid sequence identity to R. oryzae lipase (GenBank No. BAG16821.1) (Fig). Rhizopus lipases are synthesized as pre-pro-proteins composed of signal sequence, prosequence and mature lipase sequence (76) (80). The production of Rhizopus lipases has been performed in Escherichia coli [8], in Saccharomyces cerevisiae [9] and in Pichia pastoris [10,11]. Due to either different protein post-translational modifications affecting the glycosylation pattern of these lipases, or to proteolytic cleavage products arising from the mature, the pro- or the pre-pro-enzyme, the lipases derived from recombinant strains showed different molecular mass and different enzymatic properties compared with those from wild strains (75) (81). E. coli as host When E. coli was selected as a host, overexpression of R. oryzae prolipase (ProROL) and mature R. oryzae lipase (mROL) was achieved by using E. coli BL321, the heat-inducible vector pCYTEXP1 and the preOmpA sequence to achieve secretion into the periplasmic space (77) (76). Both fusion proteins induced by a temperature shift to 42 °C were correctly processed and translocated to the periplasmic space, but both mROL and ProROL accumulated as insoluble aggregates. Furthermore, the enzyme activity of mROL damages cells even at low concentrations, whereas the expression of active ProROL has no toxic effects on E. coli and the amount of purified active ProROL (103 U/mL) is larger than that of mROL by a factor of more than 100(77). By in vitro refolding of the insoluble form of mROL, its prosequence was supposed to support the refolding of mROL in vitro (77). R. delemar lipase was also expressed as inactive and insoluble forms in the cytoplasm of E. coli BL21(DE3) using plasmid vector pET11d (74). In order to achieve soluble production in E. coli, Di Lorenzo et al. (82) used a reductase-deficient host strain, E. coli Origami(DE3), which greatly enhance disulfide bond formation in the E. coli cytoplasm, and pET-11d as expression systems, yielded correctly folded and active mROL and ProROL only in the cytoplasm fraction. Although the specific activities of mROL and ProROL are comparable, the yield of ProROL (166U/mL) was higher than that of mROL (82). S. cerevisiae as host In contrast to E. coli expression system, eukaryotic expression system (eg. P. pastoris, S. cerevisiae) has the advantage of secretion into the cell culture supernatant, avoiding cell disruption, and post-translational modifications, including glycosylation and disulfide bond formation. Takahashi et al. (78) reported the production of the active R. oryzae lipase (ROL) by S. cerevisiae. When the ProROL gene fused with S. cerevisiae α-factor signal sequence was expressed in S. cerevisiae using UPR-ICL as a promoter, two forms of ROL, ProROL (46 kDa) and r28ROL (35 kDa) having 28 amino acids of the prosequence, were secreted into the culture medium, but the activity of mROL was not detected in both the medium and cells (78). The N-terminal amino acid sequence analysis revealed that the processed form r28ROL was cleaved by Kex2-like protease in S. cerevisiae at the recognition site KR in the prosequence (78). The independent production of two different molecular forms of ROL was successfully obtained using Kex2-engineered strains of S. cerevisiae (83). The amounts of enzyme secreted were estimated as 78.8 mg/l broth for ProROL and 38.3 mg/l broth for r28ROL. These two forms of ROL exhibited distinct properties. ProROL were more thermostable than the processed lipase r28ROL (83), which was also observed in the case of R. niveus lipase expressed in S. cerevisiae (84). The expressed R. niveus lipase activity in the culture supernatant reached 1600 U/mL, a value equivalent to 0.2~0.3 g lipase protein per 1 liter of culture supernatant (72). The role of the prosequence of ROL was further analyzed in S. cerevisiae. When mROL was co-expressed in trans with the prosequence fused to the pre-alpha-factor leader sequence, the activity of mROL was recovered, suggested that the covalent linkage of the prosequence to the mROL was not necessary for the function (85) (86) . From the expression of the ROL mutants with deletions at the N-terminal end of the prosequence together with mROL in trans, the residues from 20 to 37 in the prosequence were essential for the secretion, and those from 38 to 57 were essential for the formation of the active ROL and might play a role as an intramolecular chaperone (86). Apart from extracellular expression, R. oryzae lipase was also successfully displayed on the cell surface of S. cerevisiae with a lipase activity of 350.6 U/L (87-89). P. pastoris as host On the contrary to S. cerevisiae expression system when the prolipase gene from R. arrhizus was expressed in P. pastoris, only the mature lipase attached with 28 amino acids of the carboxy-terminal part of the prosequence was secreted in the supernatant (Niu, Li et al. 2006). Prolipase with complete prosequence was nearly found in the supernatant which may be the result that the activity of Kex2-like protease was higher in P. pastoris than in S. cerevisiae (Niu, Li et al. 2006). Interestingly, expression of the prolipase gene from R. chinensis in P. pastors produced two forms of lipase, mature lipase attached with 27 amino acids of the prosequence (r27RCL) and mature lipase (mRCL) (Yu, Wang et al. 2009). At the early stage of fermentation, the recombinant P. pastors produced only r27RCL, which was gradually degraded into mRCL along with the fermentation, probably processed by serine proteases presented in the culture medium (Yu, Wang et al. 2009). For R. oryzae lipase, r28ROL was also observed to convert to mature lipase gradually incubated at 0-6 °C for a few days (Sayari, Frikha et al. 2005, Hama, Tamalampudi et al. 2006). It has been reported that the prosequence from R. chinensis lipases was more efficient than that from ROL in the role of facilitating the folding and secretion of an active lipase (Yu, Sha et al. 2013). The activity of the chimeric lipase from R. oryzae by replacing the prosequence with that from R. chinensis reached 4050 U/mL, which was 11 fold higher than that of the parent expressed in P. pastoris (Yu, Sha et al. 2013). mROL activity expressed in S. cerevisiae was not detected (Ueda, Takahashi et al. 2002), whereas mROL was functionally expressed and secreted in P. pastoris (Beer, McCarthy et al. 1998) (Minning, Schmidt-Dannert et al. 1998). The expression of mROL was compared under different regulated promoters (Serrano 2002) (Cos, Resina et al. 2005) (Resina, Serrano et al. 2004), i.e. alcohol oxidase 1 promoter (PAOX), glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase promoter (PGAP) and the formaldehyde dehydrogenase 1 promoter (PFLD1). Expression of the mature form of ROL under the constitutive PGAP promoter resulted in extremely low extracellular lipase levels (Serrano 2002). PAOX is highly induced during growth on methanol, but tightly repressed during growth of the yeast on most common carbon sources such as glucose, glycerol or ethanol, while PFLD1 allows the design of methanol-free culture strategies, being methylamine a less volatile and flammable inducer. Valero and co-authors (Resina, Cos et al. 2005) (Cos, Resina et al. 2005) successfully expressed mROL in P. pastoris under the PFLD1 promoter using methylamine as nitrogen and sorbitol as carbon source. The productivity under PFLD1 promoter are comparable to the classic PAOX system (Resina, Cos et al. 2005) (Cos, Resina et al. 2005). However, limitationsincurrent knowledgein the regulation of methylamine metabolism in P. pastoris limit thedesignof efficientfermentationstrategies using PFLD1 promoter. The presence of multiple integrated copies of a desired expression cassette has been reported to be an important factor in increasing foreign protein production in P. pastoris (Cos, Serrano et al. 2005). The high-level expression of R. chinensis lipase was achieved by optimization of the lipase gene copy number in the host strain P. pastoris (Sha, Yu et al. 2013). Among 1, 3, 5 and 6-copy strains, the maximum lipase activity reached 12,500 U/mL in 5-cope strain, which was 6.2-fold higher than that in 1-copy strain (Sha, Yu et al. 2013). Maximizing gene copy number sometimes resulted in a decreased final productivity yield (Sha, Yu et al. 2013) or a negative effect on cell growth (Cos, Serrano et al. 2005), which indicated stress effects of Rhizopus lipases overexpression upon P. pastoris cells. Recent transcriptomic-based studies (Sha, Yu et al. 2013) (Resina, Bollok et al. 2007) strongly suggest that heterologous overexpression of Rhizopus lipases in P. pastoris indeed triggers the unfolded protein response (UPR). However, co-expression of certain chaperons could relief the cell stress caused by foreign protein overexpression. The productivity of R. chinensis lipase in P. pastoris was improved by co-expression with ERO1p and PDI (Kumar, Jahan et al. 2013) (Sha, Yu et al. 2013). These two chaperons are involved in the protein disulfide bond formation pathway in the endoplasmic reticulum, thus chaperon co-expression contribute to the relief of the protein overexpression stress in recombinant P. pastoris (Kumar, Jahan et al. 2013) (Sha, Yu et al. 2013). Co-expression of unfolded protein response transcriptional factor (Hac1) resulted in about a 3-fold increase in the overall specific productivity of mROL in P. pastoris while the deletion of GAS1, required for the cell wall assembly, achieved 4-fold increase. And the double mutant HAC1/Δgas1 strain yielded about a 7-fold increase (Resina, Maurer et al. 2009). Novel genetic factors enhancing heterologous protein secretion in P. pastoris have been identified on the basis of transcriptomic analyses (Gasser, Sauer et al. 2007), which give a new insight into engineering P. pastoris for heterologous expression of foreign proteins. Another factor that should be considered for expression optimization is the Mut phenotype. When single copy mROL was expressed in P. pastoris under control of PAOX, the Maximal lipase activity (205U/mL), the specific production rate (qp, 63 U/gbiomass/h ) and the yield of lipase activity per biomass unit (YP/X, 5775U/gbiomass) by Muts strain were 1.37-, 1.29- and 2.34-fold higher than those by Mut strain, while the productivity (2246 U/L/h) by Muts strain was 1.34-fold lower than that by Mut strain (Cos, Serrano et al. 2005). For R. chinensis prolipase expressed in P. pastoris, Muts strain exibited 1.4-fold higher activity than that of Mut phenotype (Yu, Wang et al. 2009). Muts is not as sensitive as Mut to high transient methanol concentrations which make the bioprocess easier to control and enables scale up. However, Muts phenotype fermentation results in long induction times with low growth rates (Arnau, Casas et al. 2011). Different strategies have been implemented in the production of R. oryzae lipase under the PAOX promoter in P. pastoris Mut phenotype, eg. dissolved oxygen control (DO-stat), methanol limited fed-batch (MLFB, control of the substrate concentration close to zero), methanol non-limited fed-batch (MNLFB, maintenance of the substrate concentration at a constant value), as well as temperature limited fed-batch (TLFB). The MNLFB strategy for ROL expression led to 20–30 h reduction in the production time, a 11-fold higher final lipolytic activity, a 13.6-fold higher productivity and a 10.3-fold higher specific productivity compared to the DO-stat strategy (Minning, Serrano et al. 2001). After optimization of methanol concentration, the activity of Rhizopus chinensis lipase reached 2130 U/mL by maintaining methanol concentration at 1 g/L controlled by an on-line methanol analyzer (Wu, Yu et al. 2011). One of the main drawbacks of P. pastoris Mut phenotype is the high oxygen demand in high cell density cultures using MNLFB strategy (Cos, Serrano et al. 2005). A TLFB strategy was thereafter applied to solve oxygen transfer limitations (Surribas, Stahn et al. 2007). Barrigón et al. (Manuel Barrigon, Luis Montesinos et al. 2013) compared MLFB and MNLFB strategies for the production of mROL expressed in P. pastoris. Yields, productivities and specific production rate in all MLFB conditions were very low. Best results were obtained by MNLFB strategy at methanol set-point of 3 g/L, under which condition maximum lipase activity, productivity and specific productivity reached 280 U/mL, 5406 U/L/h, 102 U/g/h, respectively (Manuel Barrigon, Luis Montesinos et al. 2013) . Due to low specific growth rate of Muts phenotype, strategies to use mixed carbon sources in the induction phase are applied to improve the expression levels of mROL and to increase the productivity of the bioprocess. Glycerol and sorbitol are both frequently used as co-substrates. When glycerol was used as co-substrate, one of the key advantages is its higher μ (0.18 h−1 versus 0.02 h−1) compared with sorbitol. However, when the relation μGly per μMeOH was larger than 4, a significant decrease of YP/X, volumetric and specific productivity was observed due to the repression of glycerol (Arnau, Casas et al. 2011). The sorbitol as an excellent non-repressive carbon source avoids the severe decrease of the specific production rate and it permits to achieve higher mROL production (Arnau, Ramon et al. 2010) (Ramon, Ferrer et al. 2007). During the induction stage, the ammonium ion released into the fermentation broth has a deep impact on cell growth and protein expression. In our previous study, the impact of NH4 concentration on the expression of the R. oryzae chimeric lipase in P. pastoris co-expressed with ERO1p and PDI was investigated (Yu, Lu et al. 2013). Analysis of carbon metabolism and energy regeneration pattern revealed that under the optimum NH4 concentration of 440 mmol/L more carbon source (methanol) was consumed with surged AOX activity and then the higher energy and amino acid precursors demand for recombinant protein synthesis is compensated for by the TCA cycle. Under the optimum NH4 concentration the lipase activity reached 12,019 U/mL, which was 1.7-fold higher than that without supplement of NH4 (Yu, Lu et al. 2013). It was also useful for other recombinant protein expression in P. pastoris by addition of inorganic nitrogen source (Kobayashi, Kuwae et al. 2000) (Zhang, Wang et al. 2008) (Yang and Zhou 2004). Production of Pure Lipases

BC Freedom of The Will & the Concept of A Person the Argument of Frankfurt Essay

BC Freedom of The Will & the Concept of A Person the Argument of Frankfurt Essay.

Write a 250-300 word essay about the content and about the philosophically-relevant implications of the arguments that Frankfurt makes in our reading for today (if printed with double-spacing, a 250-300 word essay would fill up roughly one standard sheet of paper). BE CONCISE AND GET STRAIGHT TO THE ARGUMENTS; DO NOT USE UP PRECIOUS SPACE ON INTRODUCTIONS, TRANSITIONS, PERSONAL RUMINATIONS.As you write your essay on Frankfurt’s article, “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person,” you should be able to answer these questions for yourself; HOWEVER, this does not mean that you need to (or even should) provide answers to these questions in your essay.– what does Frankfurt mean by “person” and why does he hold that one’s being a person is not simply dependent on one’s belonging to a certain species?– what does Frankfurt mean by “will,” how for Frankfurt is “will” different from mere “desire,” and why does he hold that the difference between persons and non-persons is to be found, not in one’s rationality, but in the structure of one’s “will”?– what is the point of Frankfurt’s distinction between first-order and second-order desires?– what does Frankfurt mean when he says that a “wanton” (someone who does not care about his or her will, someone who does not have second-order volitions, even if they do have second-order desires) is not a “person”?– what does Frankfurt mean when he ways that “freedom of the will” is not the same thing as “freedom of action,” that having freedom to do what one wants is not a sufficient condition of having freedom of the will?– what is the point of Frankfurt’s distinction between the unwilling addict, the wanton addict, and the willing addict?Two further recommendations:1) IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT YOU WRITE YOUR ESSAY IN TWO STAGES (AT LEAST); BETTER STILL, DO IT IN THREE, FOUR, FIVE STAGES, IF YOU HAVE TIME. For example: it is recommended that you first write an overall draft (from beginning to end of your essay) explaining what you take to be the main “moves” and arguments in Frankfurt’s article, without any concerns about conciseness, redundancy, relevancy, word-count, etc. (that is, first get all of your thoughts “out on paper”). Then, at a second stage (at a second remove), become your own “editor” and look over your own draft with a critical perspective (as if you were a second person who is reviewing your writing); then re-work your draft with any eye to fixing problems having to do with clarity, conciseness, gaps in your logic, missing ideas, questionable presuppositions, word-count, etc.2) KEEP IN MIND THAT OUR CLASS DISCUSSIONS ARE NOT MEANT TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE UNIQUE “KEY” OR “SOLUTION” TO WRITING AN ESSAY ON THE SELECTED MATERIAL. Rather, our class discussions are meant to provide you with some background, context, argumentation, etc. which is relevant to the material but which would be rather difficult or time-consuming for you to discover or research on your own. Our class discussions are meant to provide not a “key” or “model” for your own work, but rather a “preparation” or “supplement” for your own work.You should have no need to rely on any outside sources for this essay; make use of what is said in the text that we read from Frankfurt, and make use of the discussion and comments from our class interactions on Friday. HOWEVER, DO NOT WRITE AN ESSAY THAT IS LIMITED TO RE-STATING OR RE-PHRASING THE CONTENT OF OUR CLASS DISCUSSIONS. The purpose of our class discussion is to PREPARE you for your essay-writing by giving you some context, some background information, and some hints about key issues in the text to be discussed. But you should always keep in mind that the text contains far more content than we could possibly discuss in class. Your essay should clearly demonstrate that you have READ AND ENGAGED THE READING MATERIAL ON YOUR OWN, and that you are not simply following the framework presented in class. In other words: the claims that you make in your essay should GO BEYOND a mere repetition of what claims that can be found in Frankfurt’s text, and should GO BEYOND a mere re-statement of issues that we discussed in class. When thinking about the CONTENT of Frankfurt’s arguments, you should ask yourself: what is the “from and to” of Frankfurt’s argumentation? FROM what position, and TO what position is Frankfurt trying to lead the reader? Does this FROM-TO movement which makes up the content of Frankfurt’s argument make use of certain beliefs, assumptions, inferences?When thinking about the PHILOSOPHICALLY-RELEVANT IMPLICATIONS of Frankfurt’s arguments, you should ask yourself: what is implied by Frankfurt’s position? If someone accepts the argument, must he/she also accept further conclusions? Does the argument really work?In writing your essay, you should be sure to include claims or content which will clearly show that you yourself have read and engaged the text on your own, and have not merely relied upon content taken from our class discussion(s).NOTE WELL: this essay does not call for mere REPETITION or RESTATEMENT. You are not being asked to mirror what Frankfurt said in his text or what some instructor said in class. You are being asked to ENGAGE IN THE ACTIVITY OF “playing out” or “performing” the argument, somewhat similar to the way in which an actor “plays out” the script of a play. The actor “internalizes” the script, makes it his or her own, tries it on and walks around in it. Without the particularizing “acting out,” the script is not really a play at all but only a dead letter. No two actors “play out” the same play in exactly the same way, so do not be afraid to make your own contribution to bringing the “script” to life. That is, the argument made by Frankfurt should not remain a “dead letter” in your hands but should take on a “living spirit” in your activity of “playing it out.” Of course, you should not merely destroy or supplant Frankfurt’s argument by externally or arbitrarily imposing your one-sided views on it; but equally, you should not merely copy or imitate what you take Frankfurt to be saying. IMPORTANT: the idea of GOING BEYOND the text and GOING BEYOND our class discussions is NOT the same thing as merely adding your own opinions or ruminations about what the text happens to remind you of, or how the text might be relevant to your own personal opinions. This essay is STILL an essay on the CONTENT of the claims and arguments found in the text from Frankfurt. Similarly, when an actor “plays out” the text of the play, Hamlet, the play is STILL a play about the Prince of Denmark; the actor does not externally add or impose his or her own opinions or ruminations about what the play personally means to him or her. Rather, the actor “inhabits” the text of the play from an internal point of view, showing (by means of interpretation) what the play really means on its own terms. The “acting out” of the play goes beyond the letter of the text in order to show the meaning of the play, but it does not do this by introducing personal opinions in a merely arbitrary or external way.Stated differently: this assignment calls upon you to do more than merely SAY or RESTATE what has already been said or stated in the text or in class. It calls upon you to INTERPRET the text and to illuminate the text’s MEANING. To INTERPRET a text and to illuminate its MEANING requires that you go beyond what is simply stated in the text. But in going beyond the text, you should NOT simply offer your individualistic opinions about what the text somehow means TO YOU personally. Rather, you should engage the text on its own terms in order to show what the text means (or ideally should mean) TO ANY RATIONAL HUMAN BEING who has wondered about what it means to be a free and responsible agent. Your activity of offering a particular “interpretation” should NOT be the arbitrary activity of “personalizing” and “subjectivizing” the text, but rather an act of “universalizing” which unpacks what the text means (or should mean) for anyone seeking to know what Frankfurt says about being a person, having a will, etc.
BC Freedom of The Will & the Concept of A Person the Argument of Frankfurt Essay

SS 360 Purdue Unit 5 The Case for the Vote Womens Suffrage Speech Discussion

custom writing service SS 360 Purdue Unit 5 The Case for the Vote Womens Suffrage Speech Discussion.

Women’s Perspectives SpeechTopic: The first wave of feminism would not only correspond with the latter decades of the suffrage movement, but also with discussions of women’s economic independence and efforts to break free of societal constraints. For this Unit 5 Assignment, you will put yourself in the shoes of a woman from the first two decades of the 20th Century, and write a speech addressing why society should consider women’s perspectives. Women such as Alice Paul, Edna Kenton, Inez Milholland, Bessie Beatty, and others were ardent supporters of equality, whether via voting rights, sexual freedom, or joining the military.Consider the perspectives of the women described in the Unit 5 Reading and use those perspectives as a basis for your speech. You will write a speech regarding the need for society’s acceptance of women as equal members of society in the first two to three decades of the 20th Century.Content:Take a stance on a particular issue related to the first two decades of the 20th Century. The following are examples of possible events/issues related to the early 20th Century: Labor reform, voting rights, birth control, pacifism, marriage rights, or women in the military. Feel free to select an issue from this list or another from the Unit 5 Reading.Write a 500-word speech explaining why early 20th Century society should consider women’s accomplishments and perspectives related to the selected issue. Get in character! Be sure to emphasize the first two decades of the 20th Century, and in your speech, connect events from these two decades. The speech should be written as if you were living during the first two to three decades of the 20th Century, and not from your perspective as a 21st Century citizen.Speech Format:Since this is a speech assignment, include the date of the speech. For example, if you, as Victoria, a colleague of Alice Paul’s in the suffrage movement, is speaking on voting rights as part of a rally in New York City in January 1919, identify the date of the speech at some point in your speech.The body of your speech should clearly identify the issue which interests you, as a woman living in the first two decades of the 20th Century and should reflect women’s increasing involvement in the public sphere. Be sure to indicate your perspective/stance on the issue you have selected.Summarize your speech with a brief conclusion; thank your audience for attending.Word Count:The Assignment should be at least 500 words and should employ connections to the Unit 5 Reading material. You should follow the Unit 5 Assignment template in Course Documents.APA formatting:Connections to the Unit 5 Reading material are required for this Assignment. Be sure to include APA parenthetical citations and references; formatting for citations and reference entries should follow the APA 6th edition style guide, which is available under Content / Academic Tools via the Academic Writer link.
SS 360 Purdue Unit 5 The Case for the Vote Womens Suffrage Speech Discussion

HIST 2300 Purdue University Letter Home Period Accuracy Writing Paper

HIST 2300 Purdue University Letter Home Period Accuracy Writing Paper.

going to write a “letter home” to your family. In that letter, you can put personal messages in but keep that in the beginning and/or end of the letter. Your “letter” should be 1-2 pages double-spaced, . Name the source (citation) for that factual detail you add. . You should have at least one in each of the 3 body paragraphs (source). Do this at the end of the sentence you give a fact from a lecture or reading assigned.watch the lectures and read please. use quotes from the sources only.watch this link new world encounterthen english settlementthen pilgrims puritans and witchesthe lecture slides will be belowthen read Ch1- 3 pg 7-86 and use source from the book or lecture and cite them plsss i will need to email you the passage..then look over the file that will below and then the actual assignment named Exam 1Requirements: 1-2 page | .doc file
HIST 2300 Purdue University Letter Home Period Accuracy Writing Paper

Write an essay by answering all the questions below.

Write an essay by answering all the questions below..

1. Is Social Media a good forum for elected leaders? How should they best communicate with the public? You’ll evaluate the President and Vice President on their use of Twitter and Facebook to implement their agendas. 1. Read the Pew Charitable Trust article (http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2014/10/17/officials-urged-take-care-with-social-media) and develop a list of best practices for elected leaders’ use of social media.2. Spend two weeks (select a 14-day period, and be sure to state the dates in your paper) with the President and Vice President as they utilize social media:Donald Trump: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump https://www.facebook.com/POTUS/Mike Pence: https://twitter.com/mike_pence https://www.facebook.com/VicePresidentPence/Note: Mike Pence does not always have twitter messages. What does this say about him in comparison to Donald Trump? 3. What message or agenda are each conveying to “followers?” Discuss three (3) themes for each official. (for example: economy, environment, guns)4. Are they consistent with what’s on their “official” government pages? https://www.whitehouse.gov(*to follow up on more specific information associated with each individual, place your browser arrow over ‘The Administration’ tab and you should have the separate offices drop down*)5. Do these elected leaders have any more personal or social responsibility to the citizens and residents of the USA than the average Facebook or Twitter user? Why?6. If you were the social media advisor to each man, what would suggest for each? Based upon your “best practices,” are they doing it right? What can each do to try to reach out beyond their base of supporters/followers?7. How would you distinguish between what is truth v what are lies?Remember to follow the essay guidelines with three references, three pages and 12 point type.
Write an essay by answering all the questions below.