economy questions Writing Assignment Help

There are three parts to this week’s Critical Thinking Assignment paper. I have completed Part 1 (Biographical Leadership Explanation) to provide a guideline for the essay. I have also identified the phases for Part 2 (timeline). Feel free to add or adapt the completed parts to fit the flow of the paper. PLEASE also refer to the biographical leadership explanation and timeline within the analytical essay. I have also included a link to the required reading, including the author’s “biographical leadership explanation” provided within the text book for reference.

https://theperformancesolution.com/locating-myself…

Part I: (COMPLETE)

An important concept for this week’s study is there are any number of leadership approaches, each touted to be a primary influence of organizational success. Each person builds perceptions about leadership based on experiences, education, training, and personal biases. Page III of this week’s lecture provides insight into an exercise that may be useful for individuals to understand their own leadership definitions: constructing a biographical leadership explanation. Western (2013) [required reading] offered a personal example of a leadership explanation through the author’s lens; Western also describes the exercise as “locating oneself.”

Begin this Critical Thinking Assignment by composing your personal biographic leadership explanation. You may use Western’s format or another that is supported by the literature.

Place the biographical leadership explanation in Appendix A of the paper.

Part II: (SEE BELOW)

Create an historical overview of leadership evolution by constructing a time-line showing how leadership study has changed over time. The time-line should span three decades and a minimum of three (3) research phases extracted from different scholarly sources should be applied across the time-line.

Place the time-line and definition overview in Appendix B of the paper.

**NOTE: For the 3 phases, I will use the Therapist Leadership Discourse (1960s-1980), Messiah Leadership Discourse (1980-2000), and the Eco-Leadership Discourse (2000-present). I have included relevant attachments.

https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/109…

Part III:

Develop an analytic essay* exploring how your leadership explanation was informed by time and by leadership study evolution. That is, decompose and extract elements from your biographical explanation and determine if and where the elements might be related to the time-line and approaches.

Within the analytic paper, reference Appendices A and B.

Include a conclusion based on findings and insights related to what influenced your personal leadership assumptions and experiences.

Requirements:

• Support your response with research from at least four scholarly sources and, in addition, you may use the required course readings.
• Your paper should be three to four pages in length, not counting the required title and reference pages and appendices.

Select a grade level 1-8 and a corresponding geometry standard from Common Core State Standards or other state standard.

Using the “Class Profile,” create a 250-500 word CBM implementation plan for your students aligned to geometric thinking and concepts.

Make sure you include:

• The mathematical subject(s).
• Frequency of administration.
• How you will score and graph the data.
• How you will use the information for your instructional planning.
• A sample worksheet that you create of a concepts and application probe. The probe should include a mix of 10 assessment items that assess every skill taught across the geometric thinking and concepts standards for the grade level selected.
• How you would differentiate the CBM probe for the students with IEPs listed in the “Class Profile.”

APA formatting. Free of plagiarism as it will be submitted to a Turn It In System.

Each “folio” should be around 500 words. Read all the resourses before answer.

1. Two common arguments for god’s existence are the ontological argument and the cosmological argument. Briefly lay out both arguments. A common criticism of both arguments is that even if we accept that they are good arguments: 1) neither actually proves “god’s” existence (i.e. an invisible conscious humanoid father who is deeply concerned with humans) and 2) neither helps us choose between the various religions. Explain this criticism.
2. Lay out the teleological argument for god’s existence. What sorts of things would advocates of this argument use as evidence of “design” in our world? One common criticism of the teleological argument is that while it may, at best, be an argument for a designer, the argument does not seem to help support any particular religion. Why not? Indeed, the argument seems to point away from some of the more common religions like Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Explain why.
3. How does Darwin respond to the teleological argument? Lay out his theory of evolution (use information from the series “The Cosmos”) and explain how his theory attempts to explain away the appearance of design. What sorts of things could we look at as evidence to help us decide between the two theories?
4. Freud believes that the development from animism to religion to scientific thought parallels both the psychological development of a human being as well as a human’s libidinal development. Explain both these parallels. What, if anything, does this comparison prompt him to say about the respectability of religious belief in the modern era?
5. One argument against God’s existence is the Problem of Evil. Lay out this argument and explain why the 3 claims in the triad are inconsistent. A common theodicy is that God uses evil (or human suffering) as a way to make us better or to test us. Lay out this theodicy and show why it (according to the video episode) fails to get us out of the problem of evil.
6. Two films you watched—The Invention of Lying and Kumare seem to suggest that religion may not be about what it appears to be about—that perhaps religion serves some very important psychological and social functions. Giving examples from both these movies, what might some of these functions be?

Resources: (I will give you the book link later.)

Part 1

Arguments For God’s Existence:

A. The Ontological Argument: Anselm of Canterbury, “The Ontological Argument” Pages 30-31

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.

The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century C.E. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists.

B. The Cosmological Argument: Thomas Aquinas, “The Five Ways”

Read Thomas Aquinas, “The Five Ways” pages 45-46

The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God. Among these initial facts are that particular beings or events in the universe are causally dependent or contingent, that the universe (as the totality of contingent things) is contingent in that it could have been other than it is, that the Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact possibly has an explanation, or that the universe came into being. From these facts philosophers infer deductively, inductively, or abductively by inference to the best explanation that a first or sustaining cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists that caused and/or sustains the universe. The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology, whose goal is to provide evidence for the claim that God exists.

On the one hand, the argument arises from human curiosity as to why there is something rather than nothing or than something else. It invokes a concern for some full, complete, ultimate, or best explanation of what exists contingently. On the other hand, it raises intrinsically important philosophical questions about contingency and necessity, causation and explanation, part/whole relationships (mereology), infinity, sets, the nature of time, and the nature and origin of the universe. In what follows we will first sketch out a very brief history of the argument, note the two basic types of deductive cosmological arguments, and then provide a careful analysis of examples of each: first, two arguments from contingency, one based on a relatively strong version of the principle of sufficient reason and one based on a weak version of that principle; and second, an argument from the alleged fact that the universe had a beginning and the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress of causes. In the end we will consider an inductive version of the cosmological argument and what it is to be a necessary belief.

C. The Teleological Argument:

Read Darwin’s Theory here: Darwin and His Theory of Evolution pdf.pdf

Some phenomena within nature exhibit such exquisiteness of structure, function or interconnectedness that many people have found it natural—if not inescapable—to see a deliberative and directive mind behind those phenomena. The mind in question, being prior to nature itself, is typically taken to be supernatural. Philosophically inclined thinkers have both historically and at present labored to shape the relevant intuition into a more formal, logically rigorous inference. The resultant theistic arguments, in their various logical forms, share a focus on plan, purpose, intention and design, and are thus classified as teleological arguments (or, frequently, as arguments from or to design).

Although enjoying some prominent defenders over the centuries, such arguments have also attracted serious criticisms from a number of major historical and contemporary thinkers. Both critics and advocates are found not only among philosophers, but come from scientific and other disciplines as well.

Read Kind of fun (or annoying) Criticism of the Teleological Argument: The Flying Spaghetti M (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.onster

Part 2

Arguments against God’s Existence:

A. The Problem of Evil: David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X, Pages 84-89

B. Freud’s Challenge: Chap 3 of Totem and Taboo PDF (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Part 3

Read the discussion questions before watching the movies

1.The Invention of Lying (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

2.Kumare (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

3. The Cosmos, episode 2 (Links to an external site.)

link of PowerPoint to write paper https://hartnell.instructure.com/courses/6753/page…

User 0223385

Pass 02181988

Type a two page minimum (double-spaced) summary of both the Williamson Act and Easements PowerPoints–ONE combined paper for both topics. Type your name, date, and ABT-58 (single-spaced) in the upper-right corner. Use 12-point Times Roman font, no extra spacing before or after paragraphs, and one-inch margins all around. Keep in mind that a two page summary is considered a minimum effort, and will be graded accordingly. Papers that receive an A are generally 3 or more pages long, and demonstrate attention to the key concepts of the lecture.

The assignment is to write a summary in your own words,focusing on the key points and ideas of the lecture. Plagiarism is never permissible!

Acceptable file types to submit are Microsoft Word (DOC or DOCX), or Adobe Acrobat (PDF). Macintosh PAGES files are not accepted.