There are two parts to this essay part1 and part2. The deadline for part1 is 15/10/2020 and the deadline for part2 is 29/10/2020, The total word count including references is 3500. The index for the part1 and part2 is mentioned in the final essay2 folder that I'm attaching along with other details. I'm also attaching my main essay proposal which is the number 1.0 in the deliverables part. Please read the instructions and the details properly and then decide if you can do this or not.
ASHWIN_VENKATARAMAN_45 471207_ESSAY PROPOSAL by Ashwin Venkataraman Submission date: 31-Aug-2020 08:28AM (UTC+1000) Submission ID: 1376478300 File name: 266995_Ashwin_Venkataraman_ASHWIN_VENKATARAMAN_45471207_ESSAY_PROPOSAL_5966108_54154939.pdf (106.67K) Word count: 806 Character count: 4288 Spelling error 1 Briefly discussing the formulations of the Categorical Imperative would have improved your answer 2 Good points Briefly mentioning the limitations of Kantian ethics would have improved your answer. Good points Capitalisation incorrect Classifications could have been stronger... Referencing is not correct 28% SIMILARITY INDEX 23% INTERNET SOURCES 0% PUBLICATIONS 25% STUDENT PAPERS 1 5% 2 4% 3 4% 4 3% 5 2% 6 2% 7 2% 8 2% 9 2% ASHWIN_VENKATARAMAN_45471207_ESSAY PROPOSAL ORIGINALITY REPORT PRIMARY SOURCES www.agriculture.gov.au Internet Source Submitted to De Anza College Student Paper Submitted to Columbia College of Missouri Student Paper scholarblogs.emory.edu Internet Source Submitted to Saint Johns University Student Paper Submitted to Institute of Technology Carlow Student Paper www.coursehero.com Internet Source Submitted to Santa Monica College Student Paper Submitted to Swinburne University of Technology Student Paper 10 2% 11 1% Exclude quotes Off Exclude bibliography On Exclude matches < 3 words submitted to sunshine coast gammar school student paper kb.rspca.org.au internet source qm qm qm qm qm qm qm final grade 64/100 ashwin_venkataraman_45471207_essay proposal grademark report general comments instructor page 1 spelling error comment 1 livecorp isn't in your reference list briefly discussing the formulations of the categorical imperative would have improved your answer comment 2 should be: (o'neill, p. 414) good points briefly mentioning the limitations of kantian ethics would have improved your answer. good points capitalisation incorrect classifications could have been stronger... some valid points but the classification of each of the arguments could have been stronger - e.g. a clearer connection with the argument being around consequences (and for multiple stakeholders) for a utilitarian classification and around rights / formulations of the categorical imperative for a kantian classifciation. qm page 2 referencing is not correct rubric: 8048 essay proposal s2 2020 eth theories (40%) fail / not attmpted (0) fail (2) marginal fail (4) pass (5) pass (6) credit (7) distinction (8) high distinction (9) high distinction (10) case analysis (40%) fail / not attmpted (0) fail (2) marginal fail (4) pass (5) pass (6) credit (7) distinction (8) 6.40 / 10 7 / 10 • one or more pass elements not achieved. • one or more pass elements not achieved. • one or more pass elements not achieved. • core differences of kantian and utilitarian ethics explained • core differences of kantian and utilitarian ethics explained as per pass grade and: • discussion of kantian vs utilitarian ethics includes reference to the key weaknesses of each perspective as per a credit grade, and: • discussion of kantian vs utilitarian ethics includes reference to, and a clear understanding of, the more nuanced elements of the theories (e.g. act vs rule utilitarianism, formulations of the categorical imperative) as per distinction grade, and: • discussion of kantian vs utilitarian ethics includes reference to at least one academic paper, which is used to add additional richness to the discussion. as per distinction grade, and: • discussion of kantian vs utilitarian ethics includes reference to at least one academic paper, which is used to add additional richness to the discussion. 7 / 10 • one or more pass elements not achieved. • one or more pass elements not achieved. • one or more pass elements not achieved. • two clear arguments for the topic and two clear arguments against provided. • two clear arguments for the topic and two clear arguments against provided. as per pass grade and: • arguments are correctly labelled with the type of ethical position they are (e.g. kantian, utilitarian etc.) and this categorisation is justified. as per a credit grade, and: • discussion of arguments demonstrates an high degree of high distinction (9) high distinction (10) style (20%) fail / not attmpted (0) fail (2) marginal fail (4) pass (5) pass (6) credit (7) distinction (8) high distinction (9) high distinction (10) understanding of the theories, including identifying which aspects are most pertinent (e.g. which stakeholders affected, which aspect of the categorial imperative) as per distinction grade, and: • arguments include at least one reference to, and high- quality critical engagement with, external sources such as research reports or academic papers as per distinction grade, and: • arguments include at least one reference to, and high- quality critical engagement with, external sources such as research reports or academic papers 4 / 10 • one or more pass elements not achieved. • one or more pass elements not achieved. • one or more pass elements not achieved. • few grammatical and typographical errors. • referencing follows apa 6 requirements • word limit is not exceeded by more than 10% • few grammatical and typographical errors. • referencing follows apa 6 requirements • word limit is not exceeded by more than 10% as per pass grade and: • writing is free from unsupported / uncritical statements (e.g. generalisations about particular stakeholder groups) as per a credit grade, and: • paragraphs have clear topic sentences that summarise the contents of each paragraph. • ideas and arguments are expressed precisely and succinctly as per distinction grade, and: • writing uses engaging techniques such varied sentence lengths and vocabulary as well as appropriate metaphors and/or similes. • arguments and analysis are linked and build sequentially as per distinction grade, and: • writing uses engaging techniques such varied sentence lengths and vocabulary as well as appropriate metaphors and/or similes. • arguments and analysis are linked and build sequentially ashwin_venkataraman_45471207_essay proposal by ashwin venkataraman ashwin_venkataraman_45471207_essay proposal originality report primary sources ashwin_venkataraman_45471207_essay proposal grademark report final grade general comments instructor rubric: 8048 essay proposal s2 2020 6.40 / 10 / final essay details 1. overview due date/submission part 1: 5pm fri 16/10 (wk 10); part 2: 5pm fri 30/10 (wk 12). both parts of your final essay must be submitted on ilearn (via turnitin). your final essay should clearly state your name, your student number and the statement this is my own work. referencing should follow the apa 7 style. estimated student workload 45 hours. extensions and penalties there will be a deduction of 10% of the total available marks made from the total awarded mark for each 24-hour period or part thereof that the submission is late (for example, 25 hours late in submission: 20% penalty). this penalty does not apply for cases in which an application for special consideration is made and approved. note that here are limits on how long special consideration can be applied for, so please submit any applications as soon as possible. bess can assist with inquires about the special consideration process. overview the purpose of the essay is to undertake a comprehensive ethical analysis of the topic selected for the essay proposal. essentially, you are asked to consider the ethical issue from multiple perspectives and reach an overall conclusion. you will use three different ethical theories: 1. utilitarian; 2. kantian; and 3. your choice from the theories we have studied (virtue ethics, critical theory, environmental ethics and habermasian ethics). you are also asked to extend your analysis by summarising and applying one academic paper, which focuses on one of the three theories you have selected. the following diagram illustrates the relationship between the essay proposal and the final essay: / final essay details 2. deliverables please submit your essay using the following headings (refer to the marking criteria for the key elements of each section): essay part 1 1.0 essay proposal [unchanged from assessment task 3] 2.0 utilitarian analysis 2.1 stakeholder analysis 2.2 other considerations 2.3 utilitarian analysis conclusions 3.0 kantian analysis 3.1 categorial imperative analysis 3.2 other considerations 3.3 kantian analysis conclusions 4.0 additional theory description 4.1 description of theory 4.2 criteria for ethical analysis 5.0 reference list essay part 2 6.0 additional theory application 6.1 application of ethical analysis criteria [from 4.2] 6.2 other considerations 6.3 additional theory conclusions 7.0 theory extension 7.1 description of theory extension 7.2 application of theory extension 7.3 implications of theory extension for conclusions 8.0 conclusion 8.1 summary of application of theories [from previous sections] 8.2 overall conclusion 8.3 limitations and suggested further analysis 9.0 reference list details essay part 1 (25%) 1/ the utilitarian and kantian analysis of the topic you selected in the essay proposal task (or a new topic with the permission of the seminar leader). the main task is not to write lots of facts about the case. it is also not to write about what utilitarian or kantian ethics is. rather the task is to conduct the ethical analysis – i.e. to apply the theories to your individual case. for example, “utilitarians believe that the moral action is the one that produces the most aggregate utility” is a writing about utilitarianism. in contrast “taxing the rich to give to the poor would be ethical from a utilitarian point of view, because / though a few rich people would lose utility, this would be more than outweighed by the many rich people who would gain utility and hence aggregate utility would increase” is an application of utilitarian theory to the moral question as to whether the rich should be taxed. as you will see in the marking criteria, higher grades are awarded to those students that apply the more sophisticated elements of the moral theories. 2/ a description of the additional theory you have selected to apply to your case: i.e. virtue ethics, critical theory, environmental ethics or discourse ethics. note that you should not apply the theory to your case as that is the requirement of part 2 of your essay. essay part 2 (30%) 3/ the application of the additional theory to your case. as you have provided a summary of this theory in part 1 of the essay, you should assume that the reader is familiar with the theory and focus on the application to your case. 4/ the theory extension is the use of one academic paper to deepen your analysis. the paper you select should be about an aspect of utilitarian theory, kantian theory or the theory you have selected as your additional theory. in this section you should not assume that the reader is familiar with the academic paper you have selected and you should therefore briefly describe the way that the paper extends the theory and then apply that extension to your case. you should conclude this section by clearly stating whether this extension supports or refutes the original conclusion you reached. for example, a paper might extend utilitarian theory by providing some specific tests to identify which stakeholders should be included and excluded from the utilitarian analysis. you would then follow this method and describe which stakeholders changed as a result and what the impact on overall utility was. note that you do not have to use the entire academic paper – it may be only a section of the paper that you wish to describe and apply. 3="" words="" submitted="" to="" sunshine="" coast="" gammar="" school="" student="" paper="" kb.rspca.org.au="" internet="" source="" qm="" qm="" qm="" qm="" qm="" qm="" qm="" final="" grade="" 64/100="" ashwin_venkataraman_45471207_essay="" proposal="" grademark="" report="" general="" comments="" instructor="" page="" 1="" spelling="" error="" comment="" 1="" livecorp="" isn't="" in="" your="" reference="" list="" briefly="" discussing="" the="" formulations="" of="" the="" categorical="" imperative="" would="" have="" improved="" your="" answer="" comment="" 2="" should="" be:="" (o'neill,="" p.="" 414)="" good="" points="" briefly="" mentioning="" the="" limitations="" of="" kantian="" ethics="" would="" have="" improved="" your="" answer.="" good="" points="" capitalisation="" incorrect="" classifications="" could="" have="" been="" stronger...="" some="" valid="" points="" but="" the="" classification="" of="" each="" of="" the="" arguments="" could="" have="" been="" stronger="" -="" e.g.="" a="" clearer="" connection="" with="" the="" argument="" being="" around="" consequences="" (and="" for="" multiple="" stakeholders)="" for="" a="" utilitarian="" classification="" and="" around="" rights="" formulations="" of="" the="" categorical="" imperative="" for="" a="" kantian="" classifciation.="" qm="" page="" 2="" referencing="" is="" not="" correct="" rubric:="" 8048="" essay="" proposal="" s2="" 2020="" eth="" theories="" (40%)="" fail="" not="" attmpted="" (0)="" fail="" (2)="" marginal="" fail="" (4)="" pass="" (5)="" pass="" (6)="" credit="" (7)="" distinction="" (8)="" high="" distinction="" (9)="" high="" distinction="" (10)="" case="" analysis="" (40%)="" fail="" not="" attmpted="" (0)="" fail="" (2)="" marginal="" fail="" (4)="" pass="" (5)="" pass="" (6)="" credit="" (7)="" distinction="" (8)="" 6.40="" 10="" 7="" 10="" •="" one="" or="" more="" pass="" elements="" not="" achieved.="" •="" one="" or="" more="" pass="" elements="" not="" achieved.="" •="" one="" or="" more="" pass="" elements="" not="" achieved.="" •="" core="" differences="" of="" kantian="" and="" utilitarian="" ethics="" explained="" •="" core="" differences="" of="" kantian="" and="" utilitarian="" ethics="" explained="" as="" per="" pass="" grade="" and:="" •="" discussion="" of="" kantian="" vs="" utilitarian="" ethics="" includes="" reference="" to="" the="" key="" weaknesses="" of="" each="" perspective="" as="" per="" a="" credit="" grade,="" and:="" •="" discussion="" of="" kantian="" vs="" utilitarian="" ethics="" includes="" reference="" to,="" and="" a="" clear="" understanding="" of,="" the="" more="" nuanced="" elements="" of="" the="" theories="" (e.g.="" act="" vs="" rule="" utilitarianism,="" formulations="" of="" the="" categorical="" imperative)="" as="" per="" distinction="" grade,="" and:="" •="" discussion="" of="" kantian="" vs="" utilitarian="" ethics="" includes="" reference="" to="" at="" least="" one="" academic="" paper,="" which="" is="" used="" to="" add="" additional="" richness="" to="" the="" discussion.="" as="" per="" distinction="" grade,="" and:="" •="" discussion="" of="" kantian="" vs="" utilitarian="" ethics="" includes="" reference="" to="" at="" least="" one="" academic="" paper,="" which="" is="" used="" to="" add="" additional="" richness="" to="" the="" discussion.="" 7="" 10="" •="" one="" or="" more="" pass="" elements="" not="" achieved.="" •="" one="" or="" more="" pass="" elements="" not="" achieved.="" •="" one="" or="" more="" pass="" elements="" not="" achieved.="" •="" two="" clear="" arguments="" for="" the="" topic="" and="" two="" clear="" arguments="" against="" provided.="" •="" two="" clear="" arguments="" for="" the="" topic="" and="" two="" clear="" arguments="" against="" provided.="" as="" per="" pass="" grade="" and:="" •="" arguments="" are="" correctly="" labelled="" with="" the="" type="" of="" ethical="" position="" they="" are="" (e.g.="" kantian,="" utilitarian="" etc.)="" and="" this="" categorisation="" is="" justified.="" as="" per="" a="" credit="" grade,="" and:="" •="" discussion="" of="" arguments="" demonstrates="" an="" high="" degree="" of="" high="" distinction="" (9)="" high="" distinction="" (10)="" style="" (20%)="" fail="" not="" attmpted="" (0)="" fail="" (2)="" marginal="" fail="" (4)="" pass="" (5)="" pass="" (6)="" credit="" (7)="" distinction="" (8)="" high="" distinction="" (9)="" high="" distinction="" (10)="" understanding="" of="" the="" theories,="" including="" identifying="" which="" aspects="" are="" most="" pertinent="" (e.g.="" which="" stakeholders="" affected,="" which="" aspect="" of="" the="" categorial="" imperative)="" as="" per="" distinction="" grade,="" and:="" •="" arguments="" include="" at="" least="" one="" reference="" to,="" and="" high-="" quality="" critical="" engagement="" with,="" external="" sources="" such="" as="" research="" reports="" or="" academic="" papers="" as="" per="" distinction="" grade,="" and:="" •="" arguments="" include="" at="" least="" one="" reference="" to,="" and="" high-="" quality="" critical="" engagement="" with,="" external="" sources="" such="" as="" research="" reports="" or="" academic="" papers="" 4="" 10="" •="" one="" or="" more="" pass="" elements="" not="" achieved.="" •="" one="" or="" more="" pass="" elements="" not="" achieved.="" •="" one="" or="" more="" pass="" elements="" not="" achieved.="" •="" few="" grammatical="" and="" typographical="" errors.="" •="" referencing="" follows="" apa="" 6="" requirements="" •="" word="" limit="" is="" not="" exceeded="" by="" more="" than="" 10%="" •="" few="" grammatical="" and="" typographical="" errors.="" •="" referencing="" follows="" apa="" 6="" requirements="" •="" word="" limit="" is="" not="" exceeded="" by="" more="" than="" 10%="" as="" per="" pass="" grade="" and:="" •="" writing="" is="" free="" from="" unsupported="" uncritical="" statements="" (e.g.="" generalisations="" about="" particular="" stakeholder="" groups)="" as="" per="" a="" credit="" grade,="" and:="" •="" paragraphs="" have="" clear="" topic="" sentences="" that="" summarise="" the="" contents="" of="" each="" paragraph.="" •="" ideas="" and="" arguments="" are="" expressed="" precisely="" and="" succinctly="" as="" per="" distinction="" grade,="" and:="" •="" writing="" uses="" engaging="" techniques="" such="" varied="" sentence="" lengths="" and="" vocabulary="" as="" well="" as="" appropriate="" metaphors="" and/or="" similes.="" •="" arguments="" and="" analysis="" are="" linked="" and="" build="" sequentially="" as="" per="" distinction="" grade,="" and:="" •="" writing="" uses="" engaging="" techniques="" such="" varied="" sentence="" lengths="" and="" vocabulary="" as="" well="" as="" appropriate="" metaphors="" and/or="" similes.="" •="" arguments="" and="" analysis="" are="" linked="" and="" build="" sequentially="" ashwin_venkataraman_45471207_essay="" proposal="" by="" ashwin="" venkataraman="" ashwin_venkataraman_45471207_essay="" proposal="" originality="" report="" primary="" sources="" ashwin_venkataraman_45471207_essay="" proposal="" grademark="" report="" final="" grade="" general="" comments="" instructor="" rubric:="" 8048="" essay="" proposal="" s2="" 2020="" 6.40="" 10="" final="" essay="" details="" 1.="" overview="" due="" date/submission="" part="" 1:="" 5pm="" fri="" 16/10="" (wk="" 10);="" part="" 2:="" 5pm="" fri="" 30/10="" (wk="" 12).="" both="" parts="" of="" your="" final="" essay="" must="" be="" submitted="" on="" ilearn="" (via="" turnitin).="" your="" final="" essay="" should="" clearly="" state="" your="" name,="" your="" student="" number="" and="" the="" statement="" this="" is="" my="" own="" work.="" referencing="" should="" follow="" the="" apa="" 7="" style.="" estimated="" student="" workload="" 45="" hours.="" extensions="" and="" penalties="" there="" will="" be="" a="" deduction="" of="" 10%="" of="" the="" total="" available="" marks="" made="" from="" the="" total="" awarded="" mark="" for="" each="" 24-hour="" period="" or="" part="" thereof="" that="" the="" submission="" is="" late="" (for="" example,="" 25="" hours="" late="" in="" submission:="" 20%="" penalty).="" this="" penalty="" does="" not="" apply="" for="" cases="" in="" which="" an="" application="" for="" special="" consideration="" is="" made="" and="" approved.="" note="" that="" here="" are="" limits="" on="" how="" long="" special="" consideration="" can="" be="" applied="" for,="" so="" please="" submit="" any="" applications="" as="" soon="" as="" possible.="" bess="" can="" assist="" with="" inquires="" about="" the="" special="" consideration="" process.="" overview="" the="" purpose="" of="" the="" essay="" is="" to="" undertake="" a="" comprehensive="" ethical="" analysis="" of="" the="" topic="" selected="" for="" the="" essay="" proposal.="" essentially,="" you="" are="" asked="" to="" consider="" the="" ethical="" issue="" from="" multiple="" perspectives="" and="" reach="" an="" overall="" conclusion.="" you="" will="" use="" three="" different="" ethical="" theories:="" 1.="" utilitarian;="" 2.="" kantian;="" and="" 3.="" your="" choice="" from="" the="" theories="" we="" have="" studied="" (virtue="" ethics,="" critical="" theory,="" environmental="" ethics="" and="" habermasian="" ethics).="" you="" are="" also="" asked="" to="" extend="" your="" analysis="" by="" summarising="" and="" applying="" one="" academic="" paper,="" which="" focuses="" on="" one="" of="" the="" three="" theories="" you="" have="" selected.="" the="" following="" diagram="" illustrates="" the="" relationship="" between="" the="" essay="" proposal="" and="" the="" final="" essay:="" final="" essay="" details="" 2.="" deliverables="" please="" submit="" your="" essay="" using="" the="" following="" headings="" (refer="" to="" the="" marking="" criteria="" for="" the="" key="" elements="" of="" each="" section):="" essay="" part="" 1="" 1.0="" essay="" proposal="" [unchanged="" from="" assessment="" task="" 3]="" 2.0="" utilitarian="" analysis="" 2.1="" stakeholder="" analysis="" 2.2="" other="" considerations="" 2.3="" utilitarian="" analysis="" conclusions="" 3.0="" kantian="" analysis="" 3.1="" categorial="" imperative="" analysis="" 3.2="" other="" considerations="" 3.3="" kantian="" analysis="" conclusions="" 4.0="" additional="" theory="" description="" 4.1="" description="" of="" theory="" 4.2="" criteria="" for="" ethical="" analysis="" 5.0="" reference="" list="" essay="" part="" 2="" 6.0="" additional="" theory="" application="" 6.1="" application="" of="" ethical="" analysis="" criteria="" [from="" 4.2]="" 6.2="" other="" considerations="" 6.3="" additional="" theory="" conclusions="" 7.0="" theory="" extension="" 7.1="" description="" of="" theory="" extension="" 7.2="" application="" of="" theory="" extension="" 7.3="" implications="" of="" theory="" extension="" for="" conclusions="" 8.0="" conclusion="" 8.1="" summary="" of="" application="" of="" theories="" [from="" previous="" sections]="" 8.2="" overall="" conclusion="" 8.3="" limitations="" and="" suggested="" further="" analysis="" 9.0="" reference="" list="" details="" essay="" part="" 1="" (25%)="" 1/="" the="" utilitarian="" and="" kantian="" analysis="" of="" the="" topic="" you="" selected="" in="" the="" essay="" proposal="" task="" (or="" a="" new="" topic="" with="" the="" permission="" of="" the="" seminar="" leader).="" the="" main="" task="" is="" not="" to="" write="" lots="" of="" facts="" about="" the="" case.="" it="" is="" also="" not="" to="" write="" about="" what="" utilitarian="" or="" kantian="" ethics="" is.="" rather="" the="" task="" is="" to="" conduct="" the="" ethical="" analysis="" –="" i.e.="" to="" apply="" the="" theories="" to="" your="" individual="" case.="" for="" example,="" “utilitarians="" believe="" that="" the="" moral="" action="" is="" the="" one="" that="" produces="" the="" most="" aggregate="" utility”="" is="" a="" writing="" about="" utilitarianism.="" in="" contrast="" “taxing="" the="" rich="" to="" give="" to="" the="" poor="" would="" be="" ethical="" from="" a="" utilitarian="" point="" of="" view,="" because="" though="" a="" few="" rich="" people="" would="" lose="" utility,="" this="" would="" be="" more="" than="" outweighed="" by="" the="" many="" rich="" people="" who="" would="" gain="" utility="" and="" hence="" aggregate="" utility="" would="" increase”="" is="" an="" application="" of="" utilitarian="" theory="" to="" the="" moral="" question="" as="" to="" whether="" the="" rich="" should="" be="" taxed.="" as="" you="" will="" see="" in="" the="" marking="" criteria,="" higher="" grades="" are="" awarded="" to="" those="" students="" that="" apply="" the="" more="" sophisticated="" elements="" of="" the="" moral="" theories.="" 2/="" a="" description="" of="" the="" additional="" theory="" you="" have="" selected="" to="" apply="" to="" your="" case:="" i.e.="" virtue="" ethics,="" critical="" theory,="" environmental="" ethics="" or="" discourse="" ethics.="" note="" that="" you="" should="" not="" apply="" the="" theory="" to="" your="" case="" as="" that="" is="" the="" requirement="" of="" part="" 2="" of="" your="" essay.="" essay="" part="" 2="" (30%)="" 3/="" the="" application="" of="" the="" additional="" theory="" to="" your="" case.="" as="" you="" have="" provided="" a="" summary="" of="" this="" theory="" in="" part="" 1="" of="" the="" essay,="" you="" should="" assume="" that="" the="" reader="" is="" familiar="" with="" the="" theory="" and="" focus="" on="" the="" application="" to="" your="" case.="" 4/="" the="" theory="" extension="" is="" the="" use="" of="" one="" academic="" paper="" to="" deepen="" your="" analysis.="" the="" paper="" you="" select="" should="" be="" about="" an="" aspect="" of="" utilitarian="" theory,="" kantian="" theory="" or="" the="" theory="" you="" have="" selected="" as="" your="" additional="" theory.="" in="" this="" section="" you="" should="" not="" assume="" that="" the="" reader="" is="" familiar="" with="" the="" academic="" paper="" you="" have="" selected="" and="" you="" should="" therefore="" briefly="" describe="" the="" way="" that="" the="" paper="" extends="" the="" theory="" and="" then="" apply="" that="" extension="" to="" your="" case.="" you="" should="" conclude="" this="" section="" by="" clearly="" stating="" whether="" this="" extension="" supports="" or="" refutes="" the="" original="" conclusion="" you="" reached.="" for="" example,="" a="" paper="" might="" extend="" utilitarian="" theory="" by="" providing="" some="" specific="" tests="" to="" identify="" which="" stakeholders="" should="" be="" included="" and="" excluded="" from="" the="" utilitarian="" analysis.="" you="" would="" then="" follow="" this="" method="" and="" describe="" which="" stakeholders="" changed="" as="" a="" result="" and="" what="" the="" impact="" on="" overall="" utility="" was.="" note="" that="" you="" do="" not="" have="" to="" use="" the="" entire="" academic="" paper="" –="" it="" may="" be="" only="" a="" section="" of="" the="" paper="" that="" you="" wish="" to="" describe="" and="">