Theory Analysis

at
Categories
Tags

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choose one (1) of the case studies covered each week, and create a presentation that describes
the case, connects to appropriate theories, lists the relevant data, interprets the relevant data, discusses
possible alternatives, and proposes a course of action. This presentations includes faith integration as a
component along with the use of supporting materials from the lectures and texts. Students should use the
attached PowerPoint template when creating their presentation.
The following directives should be used to organize your thoughts about a case. As you perform your analysis
remain open to the fact that your interpretation of the facts may change and therefore you should constantly
revisit your answers. After all the below directives have been addressed, take the information and put it into a
slide presentation (always use the attatched template) that will end up being the deliverable for this project.

1. Define the Problem
Describe the type of case and what problem(s) or issue(s) should be the focus for your analysis.
2, List any outside concepts that can be applied
Write down any principles, frameworks or theories that can be applied to this case from class lectures and
texts.
3. List relevant qualitative data (bullet points acceptable)
Find evidence related to or based on the quality or character of something. Observable data that is nonnumerical.
4. List relevant quantitative data (bullet points acceptable)
Find evidence related to or based on the amount or number of something. Think quantity.
5. Describe the results of your analysis
What evidence have you accumulated that supports one interpretation over another?
6. Describe your preferred action plan
Write a clear statement of what you would recommend including short, medium and long-term steps to be
carried out.
7. Questions
Answer each of the questions related to the Case Study, each on a single slide. Begin each of your answers
with a declarative statement that encompasses each specific question. Each answer should be one paragraph
that answers the question as comprehensively as possible on a single, dedicated slide. 
8. Self-Evaluation Questionnaire Results
Evaluate your relevant self-evaluation questionnaire results in relation to the Case Study. What do the results
suggest about you and how would you apply those results to this Case Study or another unique leadership
situation?
9. Faith Integration
Reflect and reply upon the faith message from this week’s announcement or faith integration video. Is there a
Case Study application? If so, discuss that application, and if not, discuss how you might apply the important
component/s of the message to another real-life scenario.
10. Diversity Application
Reflect and reply upon the diversity message from this week’s HBR on Diversity article and/or lecture. Is there
a Case Study application? If so, discuss that application, and if not, discuss how you might apply the important
component/s of the message to another real-life scenario.

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Solution

nds causally on the existence of other beings (e.g., our parents), God’s existence does not depend causally on the existence of any other being. Further, on Malcolm’s view, the existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. Here is his argument for this important claim. Either an unlimited being exists at world W or it doesn’t exist at world W; there are no other possibilities. If an unlimited being does not exist in W, then its nonexistence cannot be explained by reference to any causally contingent feature of W; accordingly, there is no contingent feature of W that explains why that being doesn’t exist. Now suppose, per reductio, an unlimited being exists in some other world W’. If so, then it must be some contingent feature f of W’ that explains why that being exists in that world. But this entails that the nonexistence of an unlimited being in W can be explained by the absence of f in W; and this contradicts the claim that its nonexistence in W can’t be explained by reference to any causally contingent feature. Thus, if God doesn’t exist at W, then God doesn’t exist in any logically possible world. A very similar argument can be given for the claim that an unlimited being exists in every logically possible world if it exists in some possible world W; the details are left for the interested reader. Since there are only two possibilities with respect to W and one entails the impossibility of an unlimited being and the other entails the necessity of an unlimited being, it follows that the existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. All that is left, then, to complete Malcolm’s elegant version of the proof is the premise that the existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible – and this seems plausible enough. The existence of an unlimited being is logically impossible only if the concept of an unlimited being is self-contradictory. Since we have no reason, on Malcolm’s view to think the existence of an unlimited being is self-contradictory, it follows that an unlimited being, i.e., God, exists. Here’s the argument reduced to its basic elements: God is, as a conceptual matter (that is, as a matter of definition) an unlimited being. The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible. Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary. Notice that Malcolm’s version of the argument does not turn on the claim that necessary existence is a great-making property. Rather, as we saw above, Malcolm attempts to argue that there are only two possibilities with respect to the existence of an unlimited being: either it is necessary or it is impo

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.
Hi, how can I help?