Topic 4 DQ 1 And DQ 2

Topic 4 DQ 1 And DQ 2

Module 4 DQ 1 and DQ 2

Tutor MUST have a good command of the English language

Each post should average 150-250 words

Please remember that sources like the CDC or WHO are great places to get information from, but they are not considered scholarly sources. Scholarly sources are peer-reviewed and written by experts in the field.

You can certainly continue to use them as references

Please avoid very lengthy paragraphs because it causes several ideas to be clumped together as one and that is not very clear to understand. Instead, your paragraphs should be about 5-7 sentences long with transition statements to guide the reader into the next though.

Unless otherwise specified, when asked to give examples it is best to give 2 or 3 strong examples with strong supporting evidence backed by your literature review, as opposed to 6 or 7 examples loosely stated.

Citation – Remember to cite content that is not your original idea and that is not common knowledge.

If you state that “The use of healthcare continues to rise because of technology, access to care and population increase” — this needs to be cited. We as healthcare professionals may understand this but others may not necessarily know this information. They need to know this was obtained from a source and not just your thought.

If you make inferences or draw conclusions you may state – “some factors that must be considered include technology, increased population and technological advances” – this is not a definitive statement. This shows that you have considered several factors involved and you can then use your references to further elaborate on each factor.

Each post should include appropriate foundation knowledge, be factual, and enhance the ongoing dialogue. Each post should demonstrate either the application and/or reflection of knowledge. Your responses should expand on a classmate’s comments or advance the dialogue through follow-up questions Your responses should be open-ended to encourage continuing the conversation. Very few grammatical/spelling errors

These are two discussion questions

DQ1 and DQ2 posts must be at least 150 words and have at least one reference cited for each question. In-text citation, please

Tutor MUST have a good command of the English language

Sources need to be journal/scholarly articles.

Use only articles that are published between 2015-2018 (except for your theory articles which will be older as you must cite primary sources).

No textbook or direct quotes

Please separate the two DQ with their reference page

My project is CLABSI prevention

DQ 1

Explore a country that provides universal health care. What are its health outcomes? How do these outcomes compare to those in the United States? Should universal health care be a concept that the DNP should support? Why or why not?

DQ 2

The Commonwealth Fund provides an international review of health care systems. Read the Commonwealth Fund report, International Profiles of Health Care Systems, 2014, and take the associated quiz. Discuss what knowledge you gained from the quiz and describe any changes you would apply to the U.S. health care system.

The post Topic 4 DQ 1 And DQ 2 appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Rs532: Henry.Y :Reflection

Rs532: Henry.Y :Reflection

1 AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL

THE ARTS EXPLOSION,

1950–2000

Those of us who were born in the United States of America in the decade following World War II have lived charmed lives. Our world has continuously changed and expanded in remarkable and magical ways. Most of us are more educated, wealthier, and better traveled than our parents. We were born in the age of television and have lived into the age of Netflix and Hulu. We witnessed the development of computers and lived into the age of iPads. Wary of long-distance telephone charges as children, we now speak at will, and at very low cost, on our smart phones. That is, when we speak at all, because we can e-mail and text to anyone at any time at almost no cost. Along the way we adopted, then discarded, fax machines, VCRs, cordless telephones, and numerous other gadgets that seemed like revelations when they were introduced and now seem merely quaint.

Our lives have expanded in other ways. We now travel everywhere, at relatively low cost. Airline ticket prices have fallen 40 percent since the 1950s. In 1958, 38 million people flew; fifty years later, that number was 809 million! We eat foods from every corner of the earth. I didn’t taste pizza until I was ten years old; our children know the difference between sushi and sashimi. Where we once read a daily newspaper, we now access our information in real time: even twenty-four-hour news stations struggle to keep market share when so many of us get our news online, faster than it can be produced for television. We used to buy expensive encyclopedias; now we use Wikipedia for free. Instead of visiting a library to research a school paper, students now log on and search, then cut and paste.

These technological changes have been accompanied by earthshaking social changes. We have lived through efforts to secure civil rights, women’s rights, reproductive rights, and gay rights. (Hard as it might be for many younger people to imagine, there was even a battle to secure the right to divorce.) And while we still have much to accomplish, we now live in a more equitable society than we were born into.

Much else has changed over the past seventy years. For those of us who care about the arts—and a remarkable number do—there has been an explosion in the accessibility and diversity of live performances and visual arts exhibitions. Except for a few of our venerable museums, orchestras, and opera companies, most of the arts organizations in today’s United States were formed after World War II. With some notable exceptions, many of our most famous modern dance companies, theater organizations, ballet companies, and jazz groups also were spawned in the second half of the twentieth century, including the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, Steppenwolf Theatre Company, New York City Ballet, Lyric Opera of Chicago, and so on. (The same is true for many countries across the globe. Even when

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

some of the major arts venues are older, the ensembles operating within them are young. The Royal Opera House, for example, was built in the mid-nineteenth century but the Royal Opera Company was formed in 1946.)

The burst of national pride, enthusiasm, and economic development that followed the war resulted in a remarkably fertile period of creativity in the United States. Working in that decade were the playwrights Tennessee Williams, Eugene O’Neill, and Arthur Miller; the composers Leonard Bernstein and Aaron Copland; the moviemakers Frank Capra and Alfred Hitchcock; the jazz artists Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington, and Charlie Parker; and the choreographers Jerome Robbins, Agnes de Mille, and Martha Graham. We still revere the great movies, musicals, songs, novels, plays, and ballets that were created in that remarkable time.

And with the emergence of every important new artist, America’s hunger for arts experiences only increased. Audiences were large, costs were relatively low, and the great and the good in each community were willing to underwrite the expenses that ticket sales could not cover.

This hunger for arts experiences was fed by television viewing. While those born after 1970 might not believe it, serious arts played a vital role in the development of commercial television. Many popular programs promoted the great opera singers, actors, and dancers of the time, including The Bell Telephone Hour, Playhouse 90, and The Ed Sullivan Show.

It is amazing to recall that Joan Sutherland was regularly featured in prime time on network television. Although an astonishing talent, Sutherland was not the most telegenic person; she would have been unlikely to get the bookings today. But a generation of Americans enjoyed Maria Callas, Isaac Stern, and Rudolph Nureyev, while many families huddled around their television sets to watch Leonard Bernstein conduct Young People’s Concerts with the New York Philharmonic on CBS from 1958 until 1972! By contrast, the sole regularly scheduled network television program to feature classical music today is The Kennedy Center Honors, broadcast on one night each December and featuring only a short segment on the classical arts.

This appreciation for the arts was reflected in the lives of our leading politicians. President John F. Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline famously turned the White House into a salon where great artists and thinkers and writers could meet. When the Kennedys hosted the politically controversial cellist Pablo Casals in 1961, his performance made international news. The same was true of a gathering of Nobel Prize winners, of concerts by young artists, and other events.

As a result of the emergence of great talent and heightened visibility, the period from 1945 until 2000 saw an astonishing proliferation of arts organizations. And not just in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. Important arts institutions were created in virtually every city and state in the Union, including Santa Fe, New Mexico; Cooperstown, New York; and Montgomery, Alabama. Today there are tens of thousands of arts organizations spread across the nation which attract many millions of visitors and inspire countless artists and audience members.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

THE INCOME GAP Another principal factor behind this artistic golden age was the willingness of an increasing number of people to support their local arts institutions, with financial contributions ranging from modest levels to much larger amounts. While it is true that, from the beginning of time, humans have had the twin needs to create and to be entertained, the history of arts organizations is entwined with the history of the people who are willing to pay for them. The visual and performing arts have never paid for themselves.

Why? Unlike most other industries, artists and arts institutions have never found a way to consistently boost worker productivity. In almost every other profitable industry, workers become more productive quarter after quarter. It now takes fewer person-hours to make a car or a blender—or to complete a banking transaction or send an oil invoice—than it did last year. This critical element affects every business; if workers get more productive, the cost of making the good or providing the service is less than it would be if worker productivity was flat.

Those of us in the arts, however, have a difficult time improving worker productivity. Musicians do not play Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony faster every year, nor are any fewer dancers required to perform Serenade than when George Balanchine first created it in 1934. We do not ask sculptors to sculpt more quickly every year, nor do we ask composers to write a score in less time.

As a result, arts institutions suffer from a higher rate of inflation than the steel, automobile, or banking industries, where improvements in worker productivity lower one cost of production (total salaries) and offset, at least in part, inflation in other costs.

The fact that costs rise faster for arts organizations than for other industries is often misread as “artists don’t handle money well” or “artists are wasteful.” Many board members believe that if an arts organization were managed carefully, it would turn a profit. They cannot understand why an organization that makes something people like should run at a perpetual deficit.

This corporate prejudice can affect the way they govern their arts organization, encouraging them to try to cut budgets or to avoid addressing annual fund-raising requirements. Such board members start from the belief that arts managers are doing something wrong. They think that if corporate managers could run the arts organization, then it would become profitable, that if arts managers were smarter, fund-raising targets could be lower. They are simply wrong.

In truth, arts organizations are among the most efficient in the world, doing an immense amount of work with very small budgets. Even the largest arts organizations have modest budgets compared to ordinary corporations. And yet, many of the world’s most important arts institutions have created huge brand awareness, with marketing commitments that are a small fraction of their less-well-known corporate counterparts. We have to be efficient because we serve so many masters: our board members, our audience, our donors, the press, and our peers.

To make matters more difficult, the opportunity for earned income in the arts comes with some built-in limitations. In many cases, the possible income for a given performance is limited by the number of seats in the theater. The Opera House at the Kennedy Center, for

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

example, has 2,300 seats; that number has remained unchanged since it opened in 1971. Unlike most corporations, which can spread their costs over an ever-increasing customer base, each performance in this venue can serve only 2,300 patrons. Although our overheads grow quickly, our audience per show—and hence our real revenue for that show—is fixed.

When I was running the Alvin Ailey organization, I brought the dancers to perform at the Odeon of Herodes Atticus, a beautiful outdoor amphitheater built into the base of the Acropolis in Athens, Greece. It is one of the most amazing places in the world to experience a performance. The dancers were thrilled to perform on this ancient stage, with the Acropolis lit by the moon. I marveled, however, that the number of seats for the performances was the same as when the theater was built almost 2,000 years ago. There had been no opportunity for increases in real earned income, despite a huge increase in costs per performance!

Although arts institutions typically cannot increase the real earning potential for each performance, their costs rise quickly because of the productivity problem. This causes an income gap that grows larger and larger every year. This economic dilemma has faced arts groups since the time of the construction of the Odeon of Herodes Atticus. When revenue growth is slower than expense growth, deficits are the result.

INCOME GAP

FILLING THE INCOME GAP So what can we do to fill this income gap? One way to balance our budgets is to continue to raise ticket prices—as we have done for the past thirty years. But ticket prices have now grown so high that we have hit a point of diminishing returns: when going to the theater is too expensive, people stop going and revenue falls. Today, a pair of center orchestra tickets to the Metropolitan Opera cost $600! For just one performance! For that price, one could buy a computer and watch Leontyne Price and Luciano Pavarotti on YouTube for free, forever. High ticket prices do have an impact. After the Metropolitan Opera raised ticket prices 10

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

percent for the 2012–2013 season, ticket sales fell over $6 million, forcing management to reverse course. That season the Met earned only 69 percent of its potential ticket sales, down from the 90-percent range decades earlier.

The fact is that many people now believe the arts to be irrelevant to their lives. Because they have been priced out of the market, they have begun to look for other, less-expensive ways to be entertained. At the same time, advances in technology have provided many new and exciting ways to be entertained—and at almost no cost. While many arts institutions argue that they need to charge high prices to sustain themselves, they violate their own missions when ticket prices become so high as to discourage the audience for the art form they profess to be supporting. One can observe the impact of such pricing whenever a high- profile arts organization offers a free event. Just about everyone shows up for free concerts, operas, and dance performances: old and young, rich and poor, black and white. The arts are not unpopular—they have simply grown too expensive.

An alternative approach to filling the income gap has been to cut back on programming, either by doing less work or less ambitious work. A ballet company might do one less program each season; a theater company might do more small plays; an opera company might reduce the number of new productions, and so on. While this is a favored strategy of many board members—especially those who do not understand why costs rise and who believe that artists are wasteful—this is a losing proposition. Audiences and donors will not continue to support arts organizations that appear to do less and less. This should be one of the take-aways from the sad demise of the New York City Opera in 2013. When that company left Lincoln Center and became an itinerant ensemble, it also drastically reduced its number of productions each season. Although these productions received strong reviews, the performances were so diffuse in time and location that the organization could not maintain its family of audience members and donors.

Arts organizations must be frugal; we have nothing to spare and cannot justify wasting donors’ contributions. But one simply cannot save one’s way to health in the arts. A dollar cut from the budget can end up costing several dollars in lost ticket sales and contributions. It is possible to lower costs in productive ways, of course. When two ballet companies share a new production, for example, they both can appear vital to their constituents without either one bearing the full cost. Finding joint-venture partners for specific projects is a positive approach that continues to bring new work to our audiences. The exclusivity of a premier is often a selling point, but audience members could care less if the same production is shared with a city thousands of miles away.

A third key strategy for filling the income gap is to seek underwriting. Such patronage historically came from the church or from royalty. As these forms of support diminished by the end of nineteenth century, the burden of support was transferred to governments, both national and local. In the twentieth century, government support became central to the life and well-being of the arts sector. In France, one percent of the national budget is devoted to the arts; even in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, qualified artists were paid a monthly government stipend.

In those countries where government support grew to substantial levels, its easy availability had several important consequences. First, arts organizations could rely on a large

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

infusion of cash each year; artists, therefore, could afford to think big. Not surprisingly, the largest concentration of world-famous arts organizations remains in Europe—where government support has been most plentiful. To this day, European arts organizations can mount huge productions, engage important artists, commission new works, and reap the benefits of worldwide visibility. It is difficult to imagine traveling to Moscow without visiting the Bolshoi, to Milan without a trip to La Scala, or to Madrid without a sojourn in the Prado. The fame, popularity, and economic contributions of these institutions have repaid the government investment in their activities several times over. Money does not always buy quality in the arts, but predictable grants allow artists and curators to pursue their own, personal visions—greatly increasing the chances of a special product.

Those arts organizations that received large government subsidies also could afford to be more adventuresome. Without the pressure to attract private donors—or earn large portions of their budgets from ticket sales—European arts organizations, in particular, could take big risks. They could push the envelope, comfortable in the knowledge that they would receive another large subsidy the following year—even if attendance was poor or the work presented was controversial. It is not surprising, for example, that Regietheater—in which a director takes the liberty of setting an opera in a time or place not intended by the composer—began in Europe. Although this innovative approach to opera production has made its way to the United States and other nations, it remains primarily identified with the European opera houses that could afford to take great risks.

While large state-supported arts organizations prospered in this environment, it was far harder for small and mid-size arts organizations to succeed. Government funds typically went only to a few, select organizations—the state opera, the state theater, and so on. Because a culture of private philanthropy had not yet been developed, it was more difficult for an independent arts organization to become established and grow. There were exceptions, of course. Over time, several important independent organizations were formed; these groups built an audience and gained such a reputation for excellence that they were eventually awarded state support. By the end of the twentieth century, some of these smaller organizations were receiving grants at the expense of the largest institutions.

In the United States, the reverse was true. Art and government have been separated since the nation’s founding. (After all, the Puritans believed that music and dance were evil.) This situation forced private citizens who wanted the arts in their communities to provide the funds themselves. If funding had been left to local, state, or federal governments, there would be no San Francisco Opera, no Cleveland Orchestra, and no Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Although it is true that some state and local governments have invested quite heavily in the arts, apart from modest amounts granted by the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and a few other agencies, federal arts support has been limited (not counting the indirect subsidy created by the tax deductibility of contributions to eligible not-for-profit organizations).

AMERICAN ARTS PHILANTHROPY Unlike their European counterparts, American arts institutions developed with the support of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

individuals, corporations, and foundations. All of these donors wanted something in return for their gifts. For many, simple recognition was sufficient. Others desired access to artists, while some sought a modicum of control of the organizations they supported. The American- style arts board—with the expectation that members will “give, get, or get off”—was a major departure from the typical European board, appointed by the government to be the steward of public funds.

At the same time that American arts philanthropy was maturing, dynamic for-profit theater, recording, movie, radio, and television industries were developing concurrently. Over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, these industries grew very large, then were eclipsed by new technologies that presented and distributed entertainment in new ways. Although for-profit theater existed long before the twentieth century, for example, it flourished in the 1920s and beyond. The recording industry was born in 1877 with the invention of the phonograph. Early recordings featuring the great opera singers of the day sold relatively well, but the immense popularity of rock and roll transformed the business. The movie industry was born at the turn of the twentieth century then exploded with the advent of talking pictures in the 1920s. The rise of movies was followed closely by the development of radio, then the advent of television. In each case, new technology made art and entertainment easier to access and cheaper to enjoy. Often, it also made the experience of art more engaging for the audience.

And yet, through all of these developments, there remained a special place for not-for- profit arts organizations. Since early in the twentieth century, the U.S. tax code has provided a tax deduction for private contributions to charitable organizations and other not-for-profit ventures. In theory, this tax deduction was intended to encourage support for organizations that provide their communities with important services and products—services that for-profit entities would not undertake because of the lack of profit potential. In such cases, the costs were expected to be too high—or demand too low—to attract investment. Not-for-profit arts organizations, therefore, were not meant to duplicate the projects developed by for-profit entities; they were meant to be more adventuresome, to be of true service to the community, to provide educational opportunities, and to subsidize their ticket prices so that a broad spectrum of the public could partake. (High ticket prices are often cited by those who wish to limit or eliminate tax deductions for contributions to arts organizations; rather than supporting the public, the arts have become elitist, they claim, and therefore do not deserve even the indirect support of the government.)

Before the two world wars, arts sponsorship in the United States was dominated by a relatively small number of wealthy patrons. The Metropolitan Opera, for example, was founded in 1880 by twenty-two individuals who were unable to purchase boxes at the Academy of Music; to satisfy their desire for opera, they built a new theater and a new organization on their own. During the latter half of the twentieth century, however, the remarkable economic success of the educated classes left many more individuals and families with the resources to contribute—often very generously—to nascent arts organizations in their communities. Moreover, there was a prevailing sensibility that contributing to arts institutions—as well as medical, educational, and social-service organizations—was the responsibility of those who had enjoyed successful lives.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

In Kansas City, Missouri, for example, donors backed a ballet company, several theater companies, an opera company, and a symphony, while also considerably expanding the local art museum. Several families of note—the Halls, the Kempers, the Nichols, and others— wanted to ensure that their city had the educational, medical, and artistic institutions that characterized all important cities. And Kansas City was not unique: similar investments were made in Indianapolis, Detroit, St. Louis, Atlanta, and other communities. America became a nation filled with young and vibrant arts organizations funded primarily by their audiences and by generous, local supporters.

In some countries, this new model was viewed with a curiosity tinged with scorn. Many believed that donors were controlling American art and that American artists were less free to create what they wanted. But no one could deny that everyday Americans were playing an active role in the development of arts institutions. These citizens voluntarily gave time and money in support of the organizations they loved—serving on boards and gala committees, contributing their own funds and encouraging others to give as well.

People found that contributing to the arts could be prestigious; many enjoyed the acclaim that accompanied a major gift to an institution, especially if that acclaim were somehow made permanent. Contributions for new buildings were particularly popular, for example, since these gifts were credited in public ways in perpetuity. The same was true for the contribution of objects to museum collections (or the funds to purchase those objects).

For many donors, access to famous artists was another, much appreciated perquisite of their contributions. It was interesting to meet these celebrated personalities—and something to brag about at the next several dinner parties.

And for those who wanted to enhance their position in society, arts patronage created a new kind of social standing. Opening-night performances, gala events, and special concerts provided opportunities to mingle with other leaders of the community. Corporations found that sponsoring arts events raised their profile, allowed their executives to make good contacts with other influential people, provided special benefits for their employees, and helped market their products. At a time when corporate earnings were growing—and a large share of corporate ownership resided close to headquarters—a sense of noblesse oblige motivated many executives to give generously.

Over time, a number of local and national foundations—such as the Ford Foundation and the Mellon Foundation—were formed to support a variety of causes, including the arts. In many instances, these foundations began by supporting organizations on the margins—artists of color or of the avant-garde. Such foundations recognized that a healthy arts ecology was a diverse one. In most communities, the majority of corporate and individual patrons supported the mainstream arts organizations. It was therefore left to other groups to ensure that the arts in America would not only be created by, and for, the prosperous.

Many people who gave to the arts, or to other not-for-profit organizations, did so not only for their own benefit but also for the sake of their offspring. In most American cities, people of means wanted to give their children the very best of everything. Education, sports, the arts, and the church were all considered essential to leading a good, full life. Children took piano lessons and ballet classes; they played Little League baseball and went to religious instruction. Liberal arts colleges were thriving, as were book and newspaper publishers, and a

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

surprisingly large number of successful individuals felt it was essential that they regularly attend the symphony or theater. Attendance at these community events—the college or high school football game, the local symphony concerts, the weekly prayer service—was one of the responsibilities of a good citizen.

But it would be a mistake to suggest that philanthropy was the sole source of support for most arts organizations. In fact, the average contribution was small and the ranks of donors still relatively underdeveloped. For much of the twentieth century, ticket sales were the primary revenue source. In general, the costs of production were still low; few artists were unionized, for example, and touring was affordable. Most arts organization expected to earn between 50 and 70 percent of their budgets from ticket sales and tour fees.

THE SUBSCRIPTION MODEL Many Americans do not appreciate that, until recently, subscriptions to the arts were a uniquely American phenomenon. To this day, subscriptions are not available in many countries of the world. The subscription model emerged from a combination of the patron’s desire to attend with frequency and the organization’s need to guarantee income. The practice of purchasing tickets for ten operas or concerts or plays a year, in advance, proved to be convenient for customers and a godsend for arts organizations.

For starters, a subscription purchase required only one transaction per year. (At a time when one could not purchase seats on-line, or even by telephone, this was truly a convenience.) It also guaranteed good seats and made performances easy to plan for. Attendance became part of one’s social life; a subscriber expected to see the same people in the same seats on the same day of the week for years and years. It was comfortable and comforting.

The subscription model helped arts organizations in several ways. Arts organizations typically suffer from huge swings in cash flow. They are cash-poor when creating new productions—building sets and costumes and rehearsing the cast, for example—and cash- rich after performances have begun and tickets have been sold. Cash was typically tightest during the summer and early autumn months, when few performances were held. By selling subscriptions for the following season in late spring, however, arts organizations gained access to money when they needed it most—when rehearsals were beginning, but before the majority of single tickets were sold. This advance of funds was critical to sustaining the cash flow of most arts organizations.

Subscriptions also allowed the artistic leadership to become more adventuresome. Most customers were willing to accept a subscription as long as a few of the performances were of well-known works or featured important artists. This was true even if some performances in the series were less familiar. This provided a measure of artistic freedom, since organizations could sponsor new or unfamiliar works or engage less well-known performers to accompany the selection of surefire hits. In fact, the subscription model facilitated the creation of many of the then-new works of art we enjoy to this day.

Subscriptions could reduce costs as well, as it was far cheaper to market a subscription for six or eight performances than to market each performance separately. In the days before

The post Rs532: Henry.Y :Reflection appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Chemical and Burn Testing

Chemical and Burn Testing

the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=kb4tCcnA6jo

Chemical and Burn Testing

2-3 typed double spaced pages, include the testing worksheets for chemical tests observation and burn test(the file i uploaded). Describe how the fibers become yarns as well in your type written report.

This is a writing assignment. Use correct spelling, grammar and punctuation and proofread for best possible grade. Describe your understanding of the burn test, the chemical test and your understanding of how fibers are turned into yarns. Use material learned from lecture, your readings and hands on experience.

The post Chemical and Burn Testing appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Fashion Lab Result: Burn Test Video

Fashion Lab Result : Burn Test Video

the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=kb4tCcnA6jo

Chemical and Burn Testing

2-3 typed double spaced pages, include the testing worksheets for chemical tests observation and burn test(the file i uploaded). Describe how the fibers become yarns as well in your type written report.

This is a writing assignment. Use correct spelling, grammar and punctuation and proofread for best possible grade. Describe your understanding of the burn test, the chemical test and your understanding of how fibers are turned into yarns. Use material learned from lecture, your readings and hands on experience

The post Fashion Lab Result: Burn Test Video appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

· Explain the current situation of the organization in the market.

· Explain the current situation of the organization in the market.

Focus of the Final Project

Select an organization and prepare a strategic plan to grow the business over the next three years. Your strategic plan must include the following:

· Describe your organization’s history, products, and major competitors.

· Explain the current situation of the organization in the market.

· Conduct a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and trends) to determine areas that offer opportunities for change.

· Choose at least three areas from your SWOT analysis and explain why the areas you have chosen are essential to your strategic plan. Use theories and examples from your text and additional sources to support your rationale.

· Explain your method to measure the success of your strategic plan.

Your paper must be eight to ten pages in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style guidelines as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. In addition, you must use at least three scholarly sources, in addition to the text. Remember to incorporate information that you have learned from this course as well as your personal experience.

Your Final Project

· Must be eight to ten double-spaced pages in length and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

· Must include a title page with the following:

· Title of paper

· Student’s name

· Course name and number

· Instructor’s name

· Date submitted

· Must include an introductory paragraph with a succinct thesis statement.

· Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought. If possible, provide the context of a first-person experience where you saw this academic concept in operation.

· Must conclude with a restatement of the thesis and a conclusion paragraph.

· Must use APA style

The post · Explain the current situation of the organization in the market. appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Business Law Discussion

Business Law Discussion

Part 1: two paragraph on Anderson v. Country Life Insurance Co. case. Your impression on the case and why you agree or disagree with the court’s holding.

Part 2: one paragraph on the question below.

Walgreens operated a pharmacy in the Sara Creek mall. As part of this long-term lease, Sara Creek agreed not to lease mall space to another pharmacy. During an economic recession, Sara Creek’s largest tenant left and the landlord informed Walgreens that it intended to rent that space out to a “deep discount” store that would contain a pharmacy. It was the only way to remain profitable, according to Sara Creek. Walgreens sued for an injunction against Sara Creek until its contract expired in 10 years. Should a court hold Sara Creek to its contract, even if this decision means bankrupting it?

The post Business Law Discussion appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Prepare a strategic plan to grow the business over the next three years

Prepare a strategic plan to grow the business over the next three years

Focus of the Final Project

Select an organization and prepare a strategic plan to grow the business over the next three years. Your strategic plan must include the following:

· Describe your organization’s history, products, and major competitors.

· Explain the current situation of the organization in the market.

· Conduct a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and trends) to determine areas that offer opportunities for change.

· Choose at least three areas from your SWOT analysis and explain why the areas you have chosen are essential to your strategic plan. Use theories and examples from your text and additional sources to support your rationale.

· Explain your method to measure the success of your strategic plan.

Your paper must be eight to ten pages in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style guidelines as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. In addition, you must use at least three scholarly sources, in addition to the text. Remember to incorporate information that you have learned from this course as well as your personal experience.

Your Final Project

· Must be eight to ten double-spaced pages in length and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

· Must include a title page with the following:

· Title of paper

· Student’s name

· Course name and number

· Instructor’s name

· Date submitted

· Must include an introductory paragraph with a succinct thesis statement.

· Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought. If possible, provide the context of a first-person experience where you saw this academic concept in operation.

· Must conclude with a restatement of the thesis and a conclusion paragraph.

· Must use APA style

The post Prepare a strategic plan to grow the business over the next three years appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Final Assignment

Final Assignment

Focus of the Final Project

Select an organization and prepare a strategic plan to grow the business over the next three years. Your strategic plan must include the following:

· Describe your organization’s history, products, and major competitors.

· Explain the current situation of the organization in the market.

· Conduct a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and trends) to determine areas that offer opportunities for change.

· Choose at least three areas from your SWOT analysis and explain why the areas you have chosen are essential to your strategic plan. Use theories and examples from your text and additional sources to support your rationale.

· Explain your method to measure the success of your strategic plan.

Your paper must be eight to ten pages in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style guidelines as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. In addition, you must use at least three scholarly sources, in addition to the text. Remember to incorporate information that you have learned from this course as well as your personal experience.

Your Final Project

· Must be eight to ten double-spaced pages in length and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

· Must include a title page with the following:

· Title of paper

· Student’s name

· Course name and number

· Instructor’s name

· Date submitted

· Must include an introductory paragraph with a succinct thesis statement.

· Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought. If possible, provide the context of a first-person experience where you saw this academic concept in operation.

· Must conclude with a restatement of the thesis and a conclusion paragraph.

· Must use APA style

The post Final Assignment appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

The Disaster Recovery Plan And Who Is Responsible At Your Place Of Employment.

The Disaster Recovery Plan And Who Is Responsible At Your Place Of Employment.

Describe in 500 words the disaster recovery plan and who is responsible at your place of employment. Consider the critical business functions and your recovery point objectives and recovery time objectives.

Cite your sources. Do not copy. Write in essay format not in bulleted, numbered or other list format.

Reply to two classmates’ posting in a paragraph of at least five sentences by asking questions, reflecting on your own experience, challenging assumptions, pointing out something new you learned, offering suggestions. You should make your initial post by Thursday evening so your classmates have an opportunity to respond before Sunday.at midnight when all three posts are due.

The post The Disaster Recovery Plan And Who Is Responsible At Your Place Of Employment. appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"