This final paper is the capstone assignment of Business Law since it requires you to use all that you have learned in order to produce a refined piece of rhetorical criticism. In the process of writing the paper, you should be able to:
Justify the artifact and your methodological choice
Advance and defend an insightful interpretation
Explain the relevance and applicability of the interpretation
Topics: Explain the doctrine of strict liability and apply it to product defects.
Paper Format:
Introduction (about 100 – 200 words):
In this section, introduce your analysis. Provide the background, identify your research questions(s), and state your thesis for your interpretation.
This section should answer the reader’s question: what is this paper about and how is it organized?
Study descriiption (about 300 – 400 words):
In this section, describe the artifact you are examining. In doing so, you should be able to provide a descriiption of the rhetorical situation/background of the artifact. You can discuss why the artifact is worth analyzing and/or talk about the consequences of the artifact. (Was it positively or negatively received?) After discussing the artifact, you need to talk about your method. In explaining how you approached your study, you should describe what theory of criticism you used as well as what steps you took to generate your data. For example, if you have looked at multiple texts, explain how you determined which texts to examine.
This section should answer the reader’s question: what are you studying, why is this artifact worth studying, and how did you study the artifact?
Analysis (about 800 – 1,000 words)
In this section, explain and discuss your research findings. Remember that you are making an argument for your interpretation, so you should use evidence from the artifact to back up your analytical claims. There is no standard way of organizing this section since it will depend heavily on the nature of your artifact and study. However, you might try to organize this section according to your findings. For example, if there are three main metaphors you found in your artifact, this section could be broken up into a discussion of each metaphor. As you discuss your findings, you are generally doing two things: proving that the finding exists and explaining what the finding means for your critique.
This section should answer the reader’s question: what are your findings and what do they mean for the artifact?
Implications and conclusion (about 300 -450 words)
In this final section, you should take a step back from the close reading of your texts and talk a bit about the larger implications of your analysis.
This section should answer the reader’s question: how do your findings apply to other artifacts?
Requirements:
Format
Papers must be 3 – 5 pages
Typed, double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font.
Use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
Approximately 2,000 words in length
Must be original work by the student. Plagiarism will result in a F.
Reference
Include Works Cited page listing all the sources used.
Use APA style for the in-text citations and references. If you are not familiar with APA citation, please check out the tutorial APA Guidelines for Citing Sources at Writing resources for Student Module
File Name
Save your paper in the following format: Your last name, initials of your first and middle name.
For example, a student name John Hernandez will save his document as Hernandez-J.doc