Substantial news analysis or feature article in a reputable business publication

 

 

 

Being able to distill information quickly and accurately is an important study skill. Academic, peer-reviewed articles provide you with an abstract, but an abstract just gives you a general idea whether the article is worth skimming or reading. An executive summary of a business report, however, is a document that—while concise—should pro-vide enough information to allow executives to act on it without necessarily having to read every word of the report. If you are asked to summarize a news article, for example, you need to provide the gist of it to the reader who then ought to be able to clearly understand the original without having to read it. As a rule of thumb, executive summaries tend to be nutshell versions, boiled down to approximately 10 per-cent, of the original. A 100-page report might result in an executive summary of up to ten pages. If the report has five sections, the executive summary needs to address each of these sections, too. Think of the executive summary as a miniature version of the original document, following the structure but leaving out details, examples, and other supporting information. Another benefit of being able to summarize skillfully is that you verify your understanding of the concepts in your reading. If you can’t summarize the original accurately from memory, in your own words, you probably need to reread it to understand it better.
Instructions
*Select a substantial news analysis or feature article in a reputable business publication, i.e., The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Bloomberg Businessweek, Money, Forbes, The Financial Times, or the business sections of big U.S. dailies (e.g., The New York Times, The Washing-ton Post, or U.S. News & World Report).
*Choose an article of length and substance, at least 2,000 words long. Tip: If you access the article in a research database, a word count will be provided for you.

Sample Solution

Firstly, Vittola argues after a war, it is the responsibility of the leader to judge what to do with the enemy (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Again, proportionality is emphasised. For example, the Versailles treaty imposed after the First World War is questionably too harsh, as it was not all Germany’s fault for the war. This is supported by Frowe, who expresses two views in jus post bellum: Minimalism and Maximalism, which are very differing views. Minimalists suggest a more lenient approach while maximalist, supporting the above example, provides a harsher approach, punishing the enemy both economically and politically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last instance, however, the aim of war is to establish peace security, so whatever needs to be done can be morally justified, if it follows the rules of jus ad bellum.
In conclusion, just war theory is very contestable and can argue in different ways. However, the establishment of a just peace is crucial, making all war type situation to have different ways of approaching (Frowe (2010), Page 227). Nevertheless, the just war theory comprises of jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and it can be either morally controversial or justifiable depending on the proportionality of the circumstance. Therefore, there cannot be one definitive theory of the just war but only a theoretical guide to show how wars should be fought, showing normativity in its account, which answers the question to what a just war theory is.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.