Compare & Contrast Essay: Policy Advisor
For this paper, you will play the role of policy advisor. Your goal is to define a macroeconomic problem that faces a specific country clearly, then compare and contrast two possible policies to address that problem. Additionally, you must…-Use a minimum of six sources; three for each policy.-Those 6 citations must be factual/statistical in nature rather than normative. Normative sources may be used but will not count toward your six sources.-All major claims and statistics should be supported with citations -Quoted material should not exceed 15% of your essay.-Tie in at least two economic concepts from the following list. Make sure that you understand the concept and are using it properly.
Economic Concepts: Gains From Trade, Elasticity, Supply & Demand!!Price Controls, Tax Incidence!!Surplus, Deadweight Loss!Aggregate S&D
Macroeconomic Concepts: Unemployment!Business Cycle, Monetary Policy!GDP/Productivity, Inflation!!CPI/Cost of Living, International Trade!Productivity & Growth
Formatting–1000-1200 words (essay only; not counting headings or works cited).–Size 12 Times New Roman font, double spaced, with 1-inch margins.–Your heading should only include your essay title (centered) and your word counts on the upper right. Please do not put your name or a cover page. Citations–Your works cited must be in APA format and will be submitted as a separate file.–In-text citations are required for all quotes, statistics, or clear references. Ex: “Economics is the Study of Choice.” (Mankiw, 2019)–References must be from reliable sources. I recommend that you cross-reference any important information rather than trusting the first source you read. Seek out disagreement, and present the best information you can.
Overall Advice Keep in mind that the role of an expert is not to dictate what society should do but to share their knowledge with minimal bias so that individuals can come to their own conclusions. Even when experts understand and agree on the same set of facts, their conclusions often vary due to differences in personal values, morals, and perspectives. Therefore, you should be careful not to confuse normative statements for positive ones.
Required Structure & ComponentsIntroduction (3-6 sentences)–Define the problem and your two policies, including a very brief description of how each policy intends to address that problem.–Stick to the facts, avoid “framing” the discussion in a biased manner, and be concise.Body – Act as a Scientist–Define your policy goal in specific, measurable terms (expanding on your introduction). Then, analyze each policy in these terms.–If needed, describe necessary background information, like language specific to this problem/this policies.-Present the strongest case “for” and “against” each policy.–Divide your time somewhat evenly between the pros and cons for each policy and between the two policies themselves.–Develop your arguments with in-depth analysis, original thought, supporting evidence, and specificity.–Use hard evidence and statistics to deepen the discussion.–Get creative, using economic concepts like incentives and unintended consequences to bring secondary and tertiary effects into the discussion.–You may include relevant positive statements as well as normative ones. However, normative statements must follow these guidelines:1)Avoid stating personal opinions.2)Do not represent normative statements as factual3)Avoid exaggerations and disparaging or dismissive language.4)Avoid straw man arguments. Address the real issues.–Compare and contrast the overall differences between both policies. Conclusion – Act as a Policy Advisor–Summarize your policy recommendation.–What are the unique and/or similar benefits and drawbacks of each law?–Which would you recommend and why?–What evidence supports your conclusion, and what are the best counterarguments?–This is the only place where you should state your personal opinion. However, you should still keep an open and humble tone. Remember that even experts disagree…but a true scientist always invites further discussion, appeals primarily to logic rather than emotion, and focuses on measurable results (not intent) and falsifiable hypotheses
Advice–Opinions ≠ Facts. Share facts with the reader so they can form their own opinion.–Don’t oversimplify; go into depth. Anticipate the reader’s questions, and answer them.–Be succinct, accurate, and professional. Share the greatest amount of information that you can manage to fit into the provided word limit.–Address the most common counterarguments to represent both sides properly. Creating an “iron man” rather than a “straw man” gives you more credibility and makes for a much more interesting paper. For example, a paper on minimum wage that fails to address unemployment would be much less interesting or meaningful. Prove that you know what you know. Try to prove yourself wrong with your own research and present your findings. Your goal is not to “win.” Your goal is to learn. Do follow instructions diligently.–be precise with your statements, and give numbers and citations when possible.–avoid repetition, and write concisely. Say more with fewer words.–use proper grammar, spelling, syntax, & paragraphs. Vary your diction.–learn more about the topic and present what you have learned. Be thorough with your research, and demonstrate your ability to analyze, think critically, and explain complex topics.Don’t–speculate.–use ad hominem arguments (you may use morals in your argument, but be careful).–appeal to emotion, or use emotionally charged language.–rely on normative statements alone, or share your opinion…until the very end.–write what you already know and believe, then present sources that agree with you.
Recent Comments