Write a five to six (5-6) page paper in which you:
(Note: Refer to Review Question 8 located at the end of Chapter 3 for criteria 1-3. Select two (2) editorials / essays / columns (by staff or freelance writers) on a current issue of public policy from two (2) different publications (large metropolitan or national newspaper such as Washington Post or the New York Times or national magazines such as Newsweek, Time, and The New Republic.)
- Apply the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 8.
- Rate the assumptions and plot them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, “Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.”)
- Determine which arguments are the most plausible. Provide a rationale for your views.
(Note: Refer to Demonstration Exercise 1 located at the end of Chapter 3 for criteria 4-6. Examine Box 3.0 – Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis. Choose one of the following policy issues in the U.S. gun control, illegal drugs, medical insurance fraud, and environmental protection of waterways, job creation, affordable health care, or Medicare.)
- Apply the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 “Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis” to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis. (Note: Refer to page 111 of the textbook for a step-by-step process on stakeholder analysis.)
- After creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list, discuss new ideas generated by each stakeholder. (Note: The ideas may be objectives, alternatives, outcomes causes, etc.; ideas should not be duplicates.)
- Write an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area? (Note: Compare your work with Case Study 3.1 at the end of the chapter.)
- Include at least two (2) peer-reviewed references (no more than five  years old) from material outside the textbook to support your views. Note: Appropriate peer-reviewed references include scholarly articles and governmental Websites. Do not use open source Websites such as Wikipedia, Sparknotes.com, Ask.com, and similar Websites are not acceptable resources.