1.Go back to the section where you discuss the stakeholders’ issues, arguments, and evidence– be even more specific and explicit about what the arguments are and what stakeholders are giving as evidence in support of their claims. This information is there, but it is difficult for the reader to pick out the exact arguments for each side.
2.Critical Analysis of Arguments and Supporting Evidence : As you revise this section, focus your analysis more specifically on the strengths and weaknesses of the stakeholders’ arguments and what makes each argument strong or weak (e.g. valid evidence? overemphasis on emotional appeals?).
3. Moral Reasoning Analysis: As you revise this section, be sure to connect all pieces (values, obligations, consequences, normative principles) to specific arguments that illustrate those values, obligations, etc. Also, when discussing stakeholders’ obligations, tell us *who* they are obligated to, and when discussing normative principles, give the specific principle.
4. Go back through Works Cited to check that you have formatted each source type correctly.
5. Style and Tone : In places, try to use less of an informal tone (idioms, common sayings/phrases) and more of a formal tone.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.[order_calculator]