Below I have attached a file with the question at issue, claim, reason, assumption, and counterargument. [Please use the Roadmap to complete the essay, it serves as an outline]
I would like you to keep these the same, but the counterargument may be altered if you find something better. You can only use evidence from the two sources I have also linked below to back up my thesis.
The essay is about 1000 words.
No outside sources.
Use MLA or APA citation style and include a Works Cited page (does not count toward the essay total page or word count)
Use double-spacing, no extra spacing between paragraphs, 1″ margins, and Times New Roman 12 point font.
Madison Wells, Audit Manager Madison Wells, Audit Manager Madison Wells should have
Madison Wells, Audit Manager
Madison Wells, Audit Manager
Madison Wells should have been happy. Another hectic busy season was coming to an end which meant the audit manager’s standard workload would drop from 55 to 65 hours per week to a much more reasonable 45 hours. But Madison wasn’t thinking of the end of busy season or the spare time that she would now have each week or the beautiful weather in coming months.
As she sat in the audit conference room that Monday morning in early March, Madison’s world seemed to be crumbling around her. She was staring at her cell phone that lay in front of her on the conference room table. The speaker was not on but it didn’t matter. She could easily hear the expletives being screamed at her by the audit partner who was on the other end of the line.
Transitioning from the Trenches
The busy season that was winding down had been notable for Madison because it was her first as an audit manager for her employer, a large practice office of a Big Four accounting firm. Her promotion from audit senior to audit manager had become effective five months earlier on October 1, one month following her five-year anniversary with the firm.
During each of the previous two busy seasons, Madison had served as the supervising audit senior on the audit of Smith & Kinder Manufacturing, a privately owned company that produced a line of household appliances. As the onsite audit supervisor, her primary responsibilities had been encouraging and cajoling her five subordinates to complete their assignments within budget, bailing them out when they got “stuck” on tough technical issues, reviewing their completed workpapers, and keeping the audit manager informed of the overall progress being made on the engagement. She had also served as the primary contact person with the client’s accounting staff and controller. On a few occasions, she had dealt directly with the client’s C-suite executives, most notably the chief financial officer (CFO).
Madison was ecstatic when she received the news that she had been promoted to audit manager. Rather than working in the “trenches” on one audit engagement during busy season, in her new position she would coordinate multiple audits at once. In addition to frequent visits to the audit teams she was overseeing, Madison would spend considerable time working from her private office at her employer’s downtown location—for the past three years, she had shared a cubicle in the audit senior “bullpen.”
Madison’s first unpleasant surprise had come in early October when she was transferred off the Smith & Kinder audit team. She had assumed she would replace the audit manager on that team and be assigned to serve as the audit manager on two to four smaller jobs. Transitioning from audit senior to audit manager on the Smith & Kinder engagement would have allowed her to ease gradually into her new work role. But when her practice office unexpectedly picked up a new oil and gas client, Daniel Alanis, an audit partner with whom she had worked in the past, requested that she be assigned to that new client, Le Prix Oil & Gas. Madison realized Alanis made that request because he respected her and the quality of her work. Nevertheless, in her mind, she was a questionable choice for the new engagement since she had only worked on two oil and gas audits during her five-year public accounting career. And those assignments had been during her first two years with her employer when she was an entry-level auditor.
Making the Le Prix assignment even more challenging for Madison was the highrisk nature of the engagement. During the past year a sudden downturn in oil prices had slashed Le Prix’s revenues and forced its management team to hurriedly downsize the company’s operations and workforce. Le Prix’s rapidly deteriorating operating results magnified its overall business risk—the company was highly leveraged with a debt-to-equity ratio topping 4.0. The most ominous audit risk factor, though, was the aggressive stances that the company’s accounting staff apparently took on accounting and financial reporting issues. During a brief telephone conversation after Madison was assigned to the Le Prix audit, Daniel Alanis told her that the company had twice been forced to issue financial restatements over the previous seven years.
“I can imagine that in the current environment these guys will ratchet up their earnings management efforts several fold,” Alanis warned Madison before adding, “so, buckle your seatbelt, this may be a bumpy ride.”
At the time, Madison wondered to herself why her practice office would take on such a high-risk client. She didn’t raise the issue with Alanis because she didn’t believe it was appropriate to do so. In her firm’s culture, it was not considered kosher to challenge or criticize decisions made by partners.
On the bright side, Alanis arranged for Madison to have a light schedule of other audit assignments during the busy season. Her only other audit clients during the winter months were a small, family-owned chain of clothing stores and a regional healthcare company that owned and operated “walk-in” medical clinics. Neither of those clients proved to be particularly challenging for Madison. The same could not be said for Le Prix Oil & Gas.
Hostile Work Environment
Throughout the Le Prix audit, Madison repeatedly skirmished with the company’s controller and CFO over accounting and financial reporting issues. Some of those issues required her to spend considerable time gaining a better understanding of technical accounting and financial reporting topics unique to the oil and gas industry. Despite her inexperience as an audit manager and her relative unfamiliarity with the industry, Madison held her own during those confrontations. On two occasions, the client’s CFO “went over her head” and insisted on a sit-down conference with Alanis. During those meetings, which Madison attended, Alanis was fully supportive of her and the stance she had taken on the issue at hand.
Prevailing in the confrontations with the client was not without some downside for Madison and her subordinates. By the end of the audit, Le Prix’s CFO, controller, and other key members of the company’s accounting staff were clearly unhappy with the team of auditors. Madison realized the client perceived her as inflexible, if not downright stubborn, when it came to resolving questions concerning the materiality of financial statement amounts, revenue recognition issues, and other technical matters. Madison came to suspect that the client’s relationship with its prior audit firm was responsible for the difficulty she and her colleagues encountered on the Le Prix audit.
The company’s previous auditor was a regional accounting firm—during the past year, Le Prix’s principal lender had required the company to retain a Big Four auditor as a condition for approving a new long-term loan. The copies of the prior year workpapers the predecessor audit firm provided to Madison’s firm suggested client personnel had often bullied the previous auditors into submission when differences of opinion arose during the audit. Despite that impression, the Form 8-K that Le Prix filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to announce the change in auditors did not report any disagreements between the company and its prior audit firm.
Over lunch one day, Alanis told Madison he planned to meet with Le Prix’s CFO and controller after the audit was completed to try to soothe the hard feelings that had cropped up during the engagement. Because Le Prix was a large client, it was apparent to Madison that Alanis wanted to minimize the risk that the company’s management team would dump their firm after just one year. Later in that same lunch, Alanis candidly admitted to Madison that their practice office would “take a bath” on the Le Prix engagement because the audit fee was considerably “below market.” The audit partner confessed that he personally wasn’t a “big fan” of “lowballing” to obtain new clients. Alanis then explained that the office managing partner was using the Le Prix engagement as a “loss leader” to enhance the practice office’s chances of adding other local oil and gas companies to its client portfolio. The practice office was playing “catch up” with the other Big Four firms in the local market when it came to acquiring a proportionate number of audit clients in Texas’s huge oil and gas industry.
Frequent disagreements with client personnel over accounting and financial reporting issues were not the most significant challenge Madison faced during the Le Prix audit. William Blackwell, the supervising audit senior on the engagement, shocked his team members—Madison and Alanis, in particular—by resigning as of January 15. His resignation left the Le Prix audit team in a huge bind. Because there were no unassigned seniors available in the practice office, Alanis was forced to replace Blackwell with an inexperienced audit associate and have Madison step in and supervise the remainder of the fieldwork on the engagement while, at the same time, continuing to serve as the audit manager.
In exchange for her increased workload on the Le Prix audit, Alanis arranged to have Madison replaced on the healthcare audit to which she had been assigned. Because her principal subordinate on her only other audit client—the small retail company—was a “heavy” senior, she spent only a few hours each week at that client’s site.
A Perfect Storm
On a Monday morning in early March, Madison and her subordinates were wrapping up loose ends on the Le Prix audit. She expected that they would be leaving the client’s headquarters office for good by the end of the week. Three days earlier, on the prior Friday afternoon, Le Prix had issued its earnings press release and filed its Form 10-K for the year under audit with the SEC. Daniel Alanis had signed the unqualified audit opinion that accompanied Le Prix’s audited financial statements in its 10-K.
As Madison sat in the client conference room that had served as Audit Central for the past four months, she was skimming through the lengthy Le Prix audit program. She wanted to make sure one final time that each audit procedure had been initialed and dated by the individual who had completed the procedure—a few of the “wrap-up” audit tests were not yet completed. Suddenly, something caught her attention. There were two audit steps that dealt with reviewing the minutes of the client’s board of directors meetings. The first step referred to all meetings that had taken place during the year under audit, while the second step referred to any meetings between year-end and the date the client filed its 10-K with the SEC. Madison noticed for the first time that both steps had been initialed and dated by William Blackwell on January 10.
What concerned Madison was a board meeting that had taken place on February 4. She realized that since Blackwell had left the Le Prix audit team on January 15, there was no way he could have reviewed the minutes of the February 4 board meeting. There had been a board meeting on January 6 and Blackwell had apparently signed off on the second audit step after reviewing the minutes of that meeting.
Momentarily panic-stricken, Madison forced herself to calm down. It was very unlikely any major events or circumstances affecting Le Prix’s just-released financial statements had been documented in the minutes of the February 4 board meeting. Nevertheless, she intended to investigate that possibility immediately.
Madison went to the office of the chief executive officer’s secretary and asked for a copy of the minutes of the February 4 meeting. The helpful secretary retrieved those minutes and made a copy for her.
As she was re-entering the audit conference room a short while later, Madison’s heart sank. The final paragraph of the minutes referred to “technical violations of debt covenants in the Amended Loan Agreement at year-end.” The paragraph went on to indicate that the violations involved certain debt covenants that had been modified in the revised loan agreement. Nine months earlier, when Le Prix obtained an additional long-term loan from its principal lender, which was a syndicate of insurance companies, the two parties had renegotiated their existing long-term debt agreement. One feature of the amended debt agreement was the requirement that Le Prix obtain a Big Four auditor.
According to the minutes of the February 4 board meeting, the company “cured” the debt covenant violations during the first week of the new fiscal year by selling marketable securities and then using the cash proceeds to pay down certain current liabilities. Because the violations were “minor” and had “only existed for a brief time,” Le Prix’s board concluded there was no need to inform members of the lending syndicate of the violations or to disclose the violations in the year-end financial statements.
“Par for the course for these bozos,” Madison angrily mumbled as she flung the copy of the board minutes onto the cluttered surface of the audit conference room table. She was angry with herself for not discovering the debt covenant violations but furious at Le Prix’s officers and accounting staff for not having brought the violations to the attention of herself or her subordinates.
Madison knew that the degree to which any debt covenant was violated or the length of time that the violation existed were non-issues since there was no clause in Le Prix’s loan agreement regarding “minor” debt covenant violations. And she was aware the only way for Le Prix to properly “cure” or resolve a debt covenant violation ex post was to obtain a waiver from each member of the lending syndicate. Absent waivers from all syndicate members, the cumulative long-term loans from the syndicate became immediately due and payable, meaning that they should have been reflected as a current rather than a long-term liability in the financial statements Le Prix had filed three days earlier with the SEC. That change would have grossly—and adversely—impacted Le Prix’s reported financial condition.
After digging in the large audit trunk in the rear of the audit conference room, Madison finally found and retrieved a folder labeled “Amended Loan Agreement” among the permanent workpaper files. She then flipped to the debt covenant pages marked with a red tab. Embedded in the covenants were the minimum levels of several liquidity ratios Le Prix had to maintain at the end of each quarter to avoid triggering a technical default of its cumulative long-term loans.
Next, Madison retrieved the long-term debt workpaper file and turned to the spreadsheet where William Blackwell had tested Le Prix’s compliance with the liquidity ratio provisions in the debt covenants—she recalled having reviewed that workpaper two weeks earlier. As always, Blackwell’s workpaper appeared flawless. The spreadsheet included a detailed legend, cross-references to other workpapers and documents, and meticulous footnotes that precisely explained the procedures he had performed. On the spreadsheet, Blackwell had computed the liquidity ratios relevant to Le Prix’s debt covenants at the end of each quarter and compared them to the minimum levels for those ratios established by the covenants. The spreadsheet demonstrated that in each case Le Prix’s quarter-ending ratio was above the designated minimum.
Because of the apparently high quality of Blackwell’s work, the tight budget for the Le Prix audit, and the fact that she was often overwhelmed by her dual responsibilities on the engagement, Madison had spent minimal time reviewing the workpapers the senior had prepared. Instead, she had allocated the bulk of her review time to the workpapers prepared by the audit associates assigned to the Le Prix engagement. In fact, she recalled having only scanned Blackwell’s debt covenant spreadsheet— she didn’t check any of his mathematical calculations or track the cross-referenced items to other documents such as Le Prix’s loan agreement. She regretted that decision now as she stared at the workpaper spread before her on the conference room table.
After cross-checking the spreadsheet with the tabbed pages in the Amended Loan Agreement, Madison discovered that the minimum levels of the liquidity ratios Blackwell had used in his debt covenant tests did not match up with those listed in that document. After taking a deep breath, Madison retrieved from the audit trunk another folder labeled “Loan Agreement,” which was the earlier and now outdated agreement between Le Prix and the syndicate of insurance companies. Sure enough, in testing the debt covenants Blackwell had referred to the minimum level required for each liquidity ratio in the old loan agreement instead of in the new loan agreement. In fact, a footnote on Blackwell’s spreadsheet indicated that those minimum levels were drawn from Le Prix’s “Loan Agreement.” There was no reference on the workpaper to Le Prix’s “Amended Loan Agreement.”
In the revised debt covenants included in the Amended Loan Agreement, the minimum levels of the given liquidity ratios had been raised by 10 to 15 percent each. At the end of each quarter during the year under audit, Le Prix had exceeded the minimum thresholds established for those ratios in the previous loan agreement, as documented by Blackwell. Madison determined that the company had also surpassed the minimum thresholds for those ratios in the new loan agreement for the first three quarters of the year. Unfortunately, two of Le Prix’s liquidity ratios at the end of the fourth quarter were nearly 10 percent below the minimum level dictated by the new loan agreement.
After checking and re-checking all of the relevant documents and computations, Madison leaned back in her chair and closed her eyes. She knew what she had to do next and she wasn’t looking forward to it.
“How could this happen?” Alanis screamed over the phone. Before Madison could respond, the audit partner shouted again. “Do you understand that you’re telling me that the financial statements that Le Prix just filed with the SEC are wronger than wrong!?”
“Daniel, like I said, I’m sorry that—“
“Sorry?” Alanis cut off Madison in mid-sentence. “What in the do you mean, sorry? You’re sorry when you spill coffee on someone’s new shirt. You’re sorry when you ding the door of your friend’s new sports car. Sorry doesn’t apply in this set of circumstances, !”
Before calling Alanis, Madison had been very concerned he would not react well to the news she was about to give him. But she hadn’t expected him to react this badly. She liked and respected the young partner who was no more than eight or nine years older than herself. He was a family man with two young daughters, was outgoing and articulate, and was well respected within their practice office and the downtown business community. On a few occasions, Madison had seen him upset, but he had never raised his voice in anger or used improper language of any kind in her presence.
For several moments, Madison’s cell phone, which she had laid on the conference room table, fell silent. She pictured Alanis sitting in his leather chair in his downtown office trying to regain control of his emotions.
“Okay . . . okay,” he finally muttered through gritted teeth. “Tell me exactly what happened.”
Over the next few minutes, a shell-shocked Madison unraveled the sequence of events relevant to the quandary she and Alanis now faced. Because her nerves were frazzled, her timeline was not linear. At one point, she backtracked to explain that she had been reviewing the audit program that morning to ensure each audit procedure had been initialed and dated. That revelation detonated Alanis’s temper once more.
“So, you are telling me that you just got around this morning to reviewing the audit program to determine that the audit procedures had been properly signed off on!?”
Madison bit her lip and took a deep breath before responding. “I had checked the audit program on multiple occasions in the past few weeks. I was just checking it again . . . one more time.” Madison paused to allow the audit partner sufficient time to process that information before continuing. “Like I was saying, when I checked the audit program earlier it hadn’t occurred to me that William couldn’t have reviewed the minutes of the February fourth board meeting since he had resigned three weeks earlier. He obviously signed off on that second audit step after he reviewed the January sixth minutes.” After another pause, Madison added softly, “He just made an honest mistake . . . and then I . . . I made another one by . . .” Madison’s voice trailed off before she had completed her mea culpa.
“So, each of you just made an honest mistake?” Alanis asked in a mocking tone. Moments later, he thundered, “We aren’t allowed to make honest mistakes! We are professionals!”
The line fell silent for an extended time before Alanis finally spoke again, this time in short, wrathful bursts. “Now . . . why . . . didn’t the tests . . . of the debt covenants . . . uncover . . . these violations?”
Madison swallowed hard and then quietly but precisely explained to the partner why Blackwell had failed to uncover the debt covenant violations. Then she explained why her review of the senior’s work had failed to uncover his error in testing the debt covenants.
After finishing her explanations, Madison waited for Alanis to respond. As she waited, she heard muffled noises on the other end of the line that sounded like a fist being pounded against a desktop.
“You . . . never noticed that on the workpaper he referred to the wrong loan agreement?” Alanis had whispered the word “you” and then slowly built to a crescendo that culminated with him shouting the word “agreement.”
Madison briefly contemplated defending herself and William Blackwell by pointing out that the similar titles of the two loan agreements had contributed to the oversights that each of them made. She quickly dismissed that idea after realizing it had been their responsibility to take steps to prevent the similar titles of the loan agreements from triggering such mistakes on their part. Then she considered reminding Alanis that he, too, had reviewed Blackwell’s workpaper, but he beat her to the punch.
“Oh, I see,” Alanis said as his voice quaked in anger. “I guess you expected me to do the detailed review of his work.”
Alanis had every right to be angry, immensely angry. But, despite the terrible circumstances they were facing, Madison didn’t believe he had the right to speak to her so harshly, berating her with the ugliest of gutter language.
“Listen, someone is going to take the blame for this disaster,” Alanis continued, “and it sure as hell isn’t going to be me!”
By this point, Madison decided she had absorbed enough of Alanis’s rage and disrespect. She had reached her tipping point.
After a long pause, Madison spoke in a tone tinged with sarcasm. “Don’t worry about it. I’m the audit manager and you’re the audit partner. So, by definition, everything is my fault.” Madison intentionally used the inflammatory “Don’t worry about it” line in hopes that it would prompt Alanis to once more curse a blue streak in which case she intended to hang up on him.
Alanis no doubt sensed that Madison was on the verge of ending the conversation. With a herculean effort, he tamped down his emotions once more. After coughing and clearing his throat, he responded in as civil a tone as he could muster.
“I have a few things to do here. Once I wrap them up, I will be driving over there to meet with you in the audit conference room. I should be there in forty-five minutes. In the meantime, don’t mention this to anyone, including anyone else on the audit team.” When Madison didn’t respond, Alanis added, “Okay?”
The sudden change in Alanis’s tone had an unexpected impact on Madison. Rather than anger and resentment, she now felt shame. Because she didn’t want Alanis to realize she was tearing up, she cleared her throat and responded “Okay” before disconnecting the line.
When Alanis arrived at the audit conference room he closed the door and then took off his suit jacket and tossed it on an empty chair.
“I would like to start by reviewing William’s workpaper where he documented his tests of the debt covenants,” the partner said calmly as he avoided making eye contact with Madison.
“I have already pulled that workpaper for you,” Madison responded as she tried to keep her voice from trembling. “I also dog-eared the specific sections of the new and old loan agreements that pertain to the liquidity ratio provisions within the debt covenants.” After handing the workpaper and the two loan agreements to Alanis, Madison asked if there was anything else that he needed.
“No, not right now. I will let you know, though, if I need something else.”
Madison was thankful Alanis was making a concerted effort to maintain his composure. Despite that effort, the tension in the conference room was almost more than she could bear.
After Alanis sat down on the other side of the conference room table, Madison noticed the first thing he did was glance at the small box in the upper right-hand corner of the preformatted workpaper. Ten days earlier, Alanis had initialed and dated the workpaper, indicating that he had reviewed it. Madison’s initials and a corresponding date were also included in that box.
Alanis studied the workpaper and read and re-read the relevant sections of both loan agreements. He then retrieved the audit program and turned to the section that included the two audit steps mandating that the minutes of board of directors’ meetings be reviewed.
After spending 20 minutes or more examining the documents, Alanis leaned back in his chair and muttered a vulgar, one-syllable expletive under his breath. Madison heard the expletive but ignored it as she continued to work on updating a digital audit workpaper on her laptop computer.
Moments later, Alanis wearily got to his feet and put on his suit jacket. “I’m going back to the office now,” he said in a subdued tone.
As Alanis spoke, Madison looked up from her work. It was the first and only time during the brief meeting that the two of them made direct eye contact. After nodding her head, Madison refocused her attention on her laptop computer. Alanis then left the conference room without saying another word.
Madison and her subordinates completed their remaining work on the Le Prix audit late on Friday afternoon, four days after she informed Daniel Alanis of the company’s debt covenant violations. The following week, Madison spent each day in her downtown office planning and organizing two new audit assignments she had been given for companies with June 30 fiscal year-ends. Late on Thursday afternoon of that week, Madison summoned the courage to go to Alanis’s office—she had not heard anything from him over the previous 10 days.
When Madison knocked on his open door, Alanis looked up and then asked matter-offactly, “Can I help you?”
“I was just wondering, if . . . if . . . you needed me to do anything more on the Le Prix audit.”
“No,” Alanis replied firmly.
For several moments, Madison lingered at Alanis’s door. Finally, she took the initiative.
“Have you resolved the issue that . . . uh . . . uh . . . came up at the end of that audit?”
“Yep,” the partner replied tersely.
As the two of them stared at each other, it quickly became evident to Madison that Alanis was not going to share with her how the issue had been resolved. Instead of pursuing the matter, Madison turned and walked away.
Over the next several months, Madison accessed on multiple occasions the edgar.gov website where public companies electronically file their SEC documents. Le Prix never posted an 8-K information filing or any other SEC filing that disclosed its debt covenant violations. In early October, just as the planning for year-end audit engagements was commencing, Madison resigned from her Big Four employer after accepting a considerably higher-paying position as a financial analyst with a major downtown bank.[supanova_question]
Assignment 8: A Transfer of Power Film “A Transfer of Power” is
Assignment 8: A Transfer of Power Film
“A Transfer of Power” is a short documentary film depicting the routine life on Collum Collum cattle-station in northern New South Wales, Australia. The main informant for this film is named Sunny Bancroft, an Aboriginal man who worked closely with the anthropologists David and Judith McDougall on several ethnographic projects in the later 1980s. This particular film deals with what would seem a mundane job—replacing a worn out engine from one car with a refurbished engine from another car. What is interesting is the tacit cultural connections on display between Sunny and his relations. What happens when the “bush mechanic” draw on his kinship ties as a way to get the job done?
Write two paragraphs as an anthropologist making field observations of this process might, telling what you observe and how it relates to the different categories of kinship organization we discussed in the lecture on kinship this week.
Why do you think Sunny decides to call on these connections and obligations owed by his relations?
Why is that important for the continued success of the community and not just the outcome of this particular project?[supanova_question]
Philosophy Paper Check-List YES NO CONTENT Must-haves: a “no” in any of
Writing Assignment Help Philosophy Paper Check-List
Must-haves: a “no” in any of these means the paper cannot Pass
Is the thesis clearly stated?
Is the thesis something worth arguing for, or is it obviously or trivially true?
Can you tell what the author would need to do in order to establish the thesis?
Can you identify the evidence that the author uses?
Could the evidence (generally speaking) be interpreted in ways that don’t support the thesis? (Note: in a good paper, the answer to this question is “yes”)
Would be nice: a “no” in any of these is Ok for a Pass but not for a High Pass
Is the thesis actually justified or supported by the evidence used?
Does the author take any intellectual risks or place themselves in contested intellectual territory?
Does the paper avoid logical fallacies or errors in reasoning?
Must-haves: a “no” in any of these means the paper cannot Pass
Does the introduction explain the problem or question in order to provide context for the thesis?
Does each paragraph express one major idea?
Does the conclusion tell the reader how the argument of the paper relates to the context from the introduction?
Would be nice: a “No” in any of these is OK for a Pass but not for a High Pass
Do the transitions between paragraphs make logical and rhetorical sense?
Does each paragraph begin with a topic sentence that introduces the idea for that paragraph?
Are all paragraphs of the right length – not too long, not too short? (Guideline: aim for about two paragraphs per page.)
Does the paper as whole follow a logical, consistent structure from beginning to end, with no tangents or jumps?
Must haves: a ‘No’ in any of these means the paper cannot Pass
Does the paper avoid having so many spelling mistakes that it’s difficult to understand?
Does the paper avoid having so many grammatical mistakes that it’s hard to understand?
Does the paper avoid using slang or jargon that does not belong in an academic paper?
Does the paper avoid using any offensive or insulting language that does not belong in an academic paper?
Does every citation have a source?
Would be nice: a ‘No’ in any of these means the paper can Pass but not a High Pass
Does the paper have only a few (if any) spelling mistakes?
Does the paper have only a few (if any) grammatical mistakes?
Is there only one citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago) used throughout the paper? [supanova_question]
Research Paper 19th Century Art Paper Assignment: Throughout this course, we explore
Research Paper 19th Century Art
Throughout this course, we explore specific topics that reoccur in the art of the nineteenth century. For your paper, you are to select one theme in which you are interested and examine it through the work of two artists studied in class who are engaged with it in diverse (very different) ways. Please choose from among the following themes:
– gender identity
– urbanism and/or industrialism
– social (in)justice (this can include various social classes as well as rural or urban poverty)
– political engagement (revolution, protest, anarchism)
– religious belief
– nature (science, national identity…)
– modern life
You will need to precisely define the focus of your theme, identity the artists, and provide a thesis statement (what you intend to prove) in the introductory paragraph of your paper.
Paper proposals briefly explaining your topic and the selected artists, together with preliminary bibliography (around four sources), must be emailed as Word Documents to me by October 5. Papers are due by November 23.
All papers should be five pages in length (1500 words) double-spaced, 12 font
It is important that some of your readings include recent literature published in the past two decades. You can locate this by searching for books (monographs, exhibition catalogs, or articles) on the artist in library catalogs – such as the New York Public Library or at Pratt – according to publication dates. Relevant chapters and articles can be requested through the Pratt library services for scanning. If the books are not in the Pratt library, you can request scans from the librarians through Interlibrary Loans.
You should begin by looking at the bibliographies provided on the website associated with your Facos textbook. A good source for writings by artists and critics is the anthology Harrison and Wood, Art in Theory 1815-1900, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). The Met’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History also provides useful general information. You can also find important material in articles which can be searched through JSTOR, available through the Pratt library website (the link is “Databases”).
***Non-academic Internet sources, general surveys, and encyclopedias are not acceptable.
All papers must quote from the researched sources (primary and secondary) and use the correct endnote format (see below). Additionally, you must include a bibliography organized alphabetically by the last name of the author (see below).
General Guidelines for citations of sources (endnotes and bibliographies);
In Word documents, endnotes are created by placing your cursor at the end of the sentence where you want the endnote number to be located. Click on “Insert” (upper toolbar) then “Footnote” where you can select “endnote” and the numerical style (i.e. not Roman numerals).
In acknowledging sources there are a few rules to remember. In scholarship of any kind a distinction is made between common knowledge (facts) and ideas developed by different authors. Common knowledge does not have to be noted. However, when you are influenced by an interpretation of those facts, or an idea, you must reference the author and the book with an endnote. This is done by copying the original statement and placing quotation marks at the beginning and end of the passage cited, followed by a number. Under no circumstances may you copy even a descriptive phrase from a book or article without referencing the source! Plagiarism will result in a failing grade.
At the end of your paper you should have a bibliography. A bibliography is a list of all books and articles which you have consulted, even if you didn’t use some of their ideas directly. Organize your bibliography alphabetically according to the last names of the authors. In a bibliography you write the author’s surname first, then his or her first name, the title of the book, the place publication, the publisher, and the date of publication.
Do not forget – endnotes MUST include PAGE NUMBERS!
*** Once you have cited a source in full in your endnotes, the subsequent citations just need the last name of the author and the page number.
Sample endnote for a book: Robert Rosenblum, Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition: Friedrich to Rothko (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), p. 173.
Sample endnote for an exhibition catalog: Impressionism, Fashion, and Modernity, ed. Gloria Groom (Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, 2013), p.77.
For citations from individual essays in a catalog: Birgit Haase, “Fashion en Plein Air,” in Impressionism, Fashion, and Modernity, ed. Gloria Groom (Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, 2013), p. 89.
Sample endnote for an article in a journal: Steve Edwards, “Photography, Allegory, and Labor,” Art Journal, Summer 1996, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 38-44.
Sample endnote for an article in an anthology: – Tipton, Frank (2003) “Government and the Economy in the Nineteenth Century,” in Sheilagh Ogilvie and Richard Overy (ed.) Germany: A New Social and Economic History, Vol. 3, New York and London: Arnold and St. Martin’s Press, pp. 106-151.
Sample bibliography entry: Rosenblum, Robert, Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition: Friedrich to Rothko, New York: Harper & Row, 1975. [no pages necessary]. When citing an article in a bibliography, the format is the same as the endnote, except that the author is listed last name first.
Project Plan Scenarios HCS/412 v2 Page 2 of 7 Project Plan Scenarios
Project Plan Scenarios
Page 2 of 7
Project Plan Scenarios
Page 7 of 7
Project Plan Scenarios
HCS/412: Project Management for Health Care Professionals
Table of Contents
Scenario 1: PICC Line Placement 2
Financial considerations 2
Possible risks 2
Scenario 2: Fast Track Clinic 3
Financial Considerations 4
Scenario 3: Urgent Care Center 5
Financial Review 6
Scenario 4: Alzheimer Care Unit 6
Financial Review 7
You will be assigned one scenario from the four options listed below to help you create your project planning documents. Note that only basic information is provided in your scenario. You will need to use critical thinking skills to determine reasonable financial considerations, actions to complete your project, and appropriate outcomes. Be creative and make your own assumptions where information is not provided; make sure your assumptions are reasonable and functional.
Scenario 1: PICC Line Placement
The PICC line procedure is a benefit to patients who need long-term antibiotics or other medications but have poor venous access or are being discharged from the hospital. The PICC line procedure is less expensive than a surgical alternative. Currently, there is one radiologist who performs these procedures, and the patient must wait until that one radiologist is available to have the procedure done. The proper training to perform this procedure will help avoid delays. The patient will benefit from being able to recover at home and use a less expensive home health agency for continued treatment. The hospital could experience lower costs while receiving improved reimbursement from insurance companies.
The estimated expense to meet the objectives for improving the PICC line placement should be minimal. The radiologist already performs this procedure and is willing to train the hospitalists to perform it as well. The cost would only be the time for training by the radiologist.
Conflicting physician schedules
Unstable patient being brought for a procedure
The risk for infections like any catheter procedure
The radiologist is willing to share his or her experience.
Hospitalists are willing to be trained in this procedure.
Hospitalists will utilize their knowledge of the patient, their condition, and exercise good judgment in performing the PICC line procedure.
Scenario 2: Fast Track Clinic
The purpose of a fast track clinic is to divert non-emergency patients away from the emergency department (ED) and decrease the length of stay for patients who have minor illnesses or injuries. Patients who present to the ED for non-urgent care are the last to be seen because patients are triaged to treat the more severe cases first.
Patients frequently require more services within the ED, and a significant number require admission to the hospital, which can cause a backup of patients who are waiting to be treated for minor health issues. The length of time from admission to discharge has been increasing because the acuity of patients is high, and approximately 23 percent require hospitalization.
While waiting for a bed in the hospital to become available, patients are housed in the ED; thus, placing a burden on bed availability and increasing wait times. Unfortunately, patient satisfaction scores have been declining, and a loss of income has incurred because people are leaving without treatment due to extensive wait times.
Establishing a fast track clinic will help process and treat patients for non-urgent conditions. The clinic will be staffed with a physician assistant or nurse practitioner, which will allow the doctors to treat the more acute patients who present to the ED. The fast track clinic will benefit the ED because the average length of stay from admission to discharge will decrease and create additional bed availability. In addition, wait times will be reduced, which should raise the overall patient satisfaction scores and improve the flow of the ED.
EDs are already overwhelmed by the volume of patients waiting to be seen. A large percentage of visits to the ER are found to be non-urgent. The emergency department has a legal obligation under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to evaluate every patient who enters the doors whether it is a medical emergency or not.
Level one visits are charged for minor injuries like ankle and wrist sprains. Over the last 4 years, the ED has observed a steady increase in level one visits from 49 in the fiscal year 2014 to 63 within the first 6 months of the fiscal year 2017. The projected number of level one visits is expected to be 252 for the current year. Level two and level three emergency room visits have also increased over the past four years. The majority of these cases can be triaged and diverted to the fast track clinic, which would provide sufficient resources for emergency cases. This new protocol, involving triage, is expected to increase near eleven percent this year as well.
Table of Hospital Costs Over a 5 Year Period
Level I – $204 per case
Level 2 – $447 per case
Level 3 – $738 per case
Level 4 – $1,335 per case
Total Net Revenue
Level I – $30 per case
Level 2 – $83 per case
Level 3 – $227 per case
Level 4 – $574 per case
Construction of New Space
Emergency Physicians Medical Directorship Increase
Table of Costs for the New Fast Track Clinic
Capital Expense (Purchased)
Minor Equipment Expense (Purchased)
Emergency Physician Increase
Construction of New Space
Physicians and staff will participate in developing the fast track clinic workflow.
Patients will be receptive to the new fast track clinic process.
Public perception could be negative thinking that fast track care is of lower quality.
Public misperception and misunderstanding of the role of a nurse practitioner or physician assistant as the provider.
Scenario 3: Urgent Care Center
Implement and plan steps necessary for opening a new health care facility on the west side of the city. There are only one centralized hospital and one urgent care center, and they are all in the center of town. Many residents on the west side of town have close to a 40-minute drive to either of these facilities. The existing urgent care facility closes at 7:00 P.M., leaving the emergency department at the hospital as the only option for those seeking treatment later in the evening.
Location is one of the most important deciding factors when opening an urgent care center. The west side of the city includes a Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, CVS, and Walgreens. These stores create high traffic volume and house an ideal strategic location for an urgent care center. There are no medical centers of any kind on this side of town, and there is a large community of about 81,000 residents.
To improve public health and provide basic clinical care for families and patients on the west side of the city.
The objectives of the new urgent care center are to:
Provide added primary care options.
Provide x-ray and lab options for patients.
Add affordable options for care and referrals to local physicians and facilities.
Transportation of things
Rent, Telecom, Other Comm & Utilities
Printing & Reproduction
There is sufficient clientele in this demographic region to support an urgent care center.
Failure to accredit facility as an urgent care center
Failure to receive licensure by the state
Failure to receive billing contracts with payers
Scenario 4: Alzheimer Care Unit
Last year there were an estimated 110,000 individuals diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in the state. While there is no cure for Alzheimer’s disease, we can provide an environment designed for their needs. The Alzheimer Care Unit will provide a comforting environment with 24-hour nursing care, secure units, and personalized life enrichment plans. The project will result in increased quality of life for Alzheimer’s patients, encouraging them to function at the highest level for as long as possible, through patient-catered care and services. Adding an additional 25 Alzheimer’s beds to the community will enhance the opportunity for high quality, affordable care.
Improve and broaden the quality of health care service offerings by providing specialized care for those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or dementia.
Expand community access to specialized memory care.
Offer home-like, comforting environments for Alzheimer’s patients to thrive.
Increase Alzheimer’s patient’s mental stimulation and function through personalized care plans and life-enriching programs.
Costs of project
Transportation of things
Rent, Telecom, Other Communication & Utilities
Printing & Reproduction
Community resistance to additional Alzheimer patients housed in the neighborhood
Not achieving regulatory accreditation by state and federal agencies
Copyright © 2019 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
University of Phoenix® is a registered trademark of Apollo Group, Inc. in the United States and/or other countries.
Edited in accordance with University of Phoenix® editorial standards and practices.[supanova_question]