| Course | DBAX 8006 Contemporary Challenges in Business |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Revision pass |
| Length | About 770 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DBAX 8006 Week 10
Pulling the Claims the Evidence Never Reached: A Revision Pass Setting an Automation Draft Beside Its Sources Sentence by Sentence and Recording Whether Each Overreach Was Cut, Narrowed, Reattributed or Kept
Student Name
Walden University
DBAX 8006: Contemporary Challenges in Business
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Pulling the Claims the Evidence Never Reached: A Revision Pass Setting an Automation Draft Beside Its Sources Sentence by Sentence and Recording Whether Each Overreach Was Cut, Narrowed, Reattributed or Kept
Purpose
Drafts grow claims. A sentence written in Week 4 to make a point clearly often says more than the source behind it established, and later sections build on it. This revision pass returns to the draft argument on automation and headcount, sets each claim beside the source it cites and records what that source actually established. Each overreaching claim is then cut, narrowed, reattributed to coverage rather than research or kept with a reason. Booth et al. (2016) treat an argument as claims resting on reasons and evidence, joined by warrants; this pass audits those joints.
Revision Table
Table 1
Selected Claims From the Draft and What Became of Them
| Draft sentence | Source cited | What the source established | Outcome and replacement | |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Automation is eliminating manufacturing jobs." | Acemoglu and Restrepo (2020) | Robots were associated with lower employment in local labor markets | Narrowed: "Robot adoption is associated with lower employment in the commuting zones where it occurs." | |
| "Firms that automate cut their workforce." | Acemoglu and Restrepo (2020) | Local market effect, not firm-level | Replaced: "Firm-level studies find adopters tend to grow employment relative to non-adopters (Koch et al., 2021)." | |
| "Nearly half of U.S. jobs will be automated." | Frey and Osborne (2017) | Share of jobs with high technical susceptibility, not a forecast | Narrowed: "Frey and Osborne estimated that many occupations are technically susceptible to computerization." | |
| "Automation has always created more jobs than it destroyed." | Autor (2015) | Aggregate employment has not fallen over long periods; distribution of tasks changed | Narrowed: "Autor argues that automation has historically changed the mix of tasks more than total employment." | |
| "Back-office software is having the same effect as robots." | None | Nothing in the source base | Cut, or reattributed to coverage and labeled as unstudied | |
| "Robot adoption raises productivity at adopting firms." | Koch et al. (2021) | Adopters increased output in Spanish manufacturing | Kept with limit: "in Spanish manufacturing" added | |
Six of nineteen claims checked are shown. Thirteen were kept as written after checking.
Patterns in the Overreach
Three patterns account for most of the overreaching claims. The first is moving between levels of analysis: a finding about local labor markets was used to support a claim about individual firms. That is the most serious error, because the firm-level evidence points the other way. The second is treating an estimate of technical feasibility as a forecast. Frey and Osborne measured which tasks could be automated, not which would be or when, and the draft repeated a common misreading of their figure. The third is generalizing from manufacturing to all firms. Every firm-level study in the source base concerns industrial robots; the draft's claims about software automation in service firms had no source at all.
What the Revisions Change
The revised draft makes a smaller claim than the original. It no longer says that automation cuts jobs at the firms that adopt it; it says that adopters in manufacturing have tended to grow relative to non-adopters, while employment in their local markets has fallen, and that the effect of software automation in service firms is not yet established by research. That claim is less dramatic, but every sentence can now be traced to a source that supports it.
Reflective Memo
The most useful discovery was how easily a well-designed study can be made to say something it did not. Acemoglu and Restrepo's work is careful and widely cited, and its finding about local markets is easy to compress into a sentence about firms. The revision table made the compression visible. In future drafts, I will note the level of analysis next to each citation as I write, rather than checking afterward. Sword (2012) observes that clear academic writing depends on precise claims; this pass showed that precision is a matter of evidence as much as of style.
What the Pass Did Not Change
The pass did not add new sources or new claims. Where a claim was cut because nothing supported it, the gap was recorded for the final paper's limits section rather than filled with a quickly found source, since a source chosen to rescue a sentence tends to be read as selectively as the sentence was written.
Sources Rechecked
For each claim, the source was reopened and the relevant section reread, not checked from memory or from the abstract alone. Two claims that seemed correct from memory turned out to rest on a figure in a different table from the one cited, and the page references were corrected.
References
Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128(6), 2188-2244. https://doi.org/10.1086/705716
Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.3
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
Koch, M., Manuylov, I., & Smolka, M. (2021). Robots and firms. Economic Journal, 131(638), 2553-2584. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueab009
Sword, H. (2012). Stylish academic writing. Harvard University Press.
What the DBAX 8006 Week 10 instructions ask for
Week 10 asks you to revise your draft by checking every claim against its source. Set each sentence that makes a claim beside the source it cites and record what that source actually established. Decide for each overreaching claim whether to cut it, narrow it, reattribute it to coverage or keep it with a reason, and write the replacement sentence. Present a representative set in a table and report totals. Identify the patterns behind the overreach so they can be avoided in future drafts. Explain what the revisions change in your overall claim, and close with a short reflective memo on what the audit taught you about your own writing habits.
Inside the DBAX 8006 Week 10 example
The pass opens by explaining the audit, citing Booth and colleagues on warrants. A table shows six claims with source, what it established and the outcome. A section names three patterns of overreach. A section explains how the revised claim is smaller but fully traceable. A reflective memo describes how a careful study was easily compressed into a broader claim and resolves to note the level of analysis while drafting, citing Sword. A short section notes that no new sources were added during the pass, and a final section reports that two page references were corrected after rereading. Totals are reported alongside the six examples, so the reader knows how representative they are.
DBAX 8006 Week 10 rubric: what earns full marks
Revision passes earn credit for a visible audit trail. Setting claims beside sources and recording what each source established is weighted heavily. Clear outcomes for each claim, with replacement sentences, make the revision checkable. Identifying patterns of overreach shows reflection that will improve later work. Explaining how the overall claim changed shows the audit mattered. A reflective memo that names a specific habit and a specific remedy shows growth. Passes that correct grammar only, revise without recording changes or add new sources to rescue weak claims tend to receive lower marks. Rereading the sources rather than checking from memory is the expected practice. Noting that sources were reopened, not recalled, shows the audit was done properly.
DBAX 8006 Week 10 help from the desk
Go through your draft and highlight every sentence that makes a claim and cites a source. For each, open the source and find the passage that supports it. Write down what the source actually found, then compare. If the sentence says more, decide whether to cut it, narrow it or label it as coverage rather than research. Keep a table of your decisions. Students often check claims from memory and miss overreach they wrote themselves. Others fix the wording but leave the overreach. Look for patterns: are you moving from markets to firms, or from one industry to all? For a long draft, our writers can build the audit table with you section by section.
Get a DBAX 8006 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 10 instructions and rubric, with any instructor comments you received, and a sample revision pass, built on a draft of its own, comes back within 24-48h, the first at no charge. Say whether your section wants the revised draft attached. Which claims your own paper keeps is a call the sample leaves to you.
More DBAX 8006 papers and DBA samples
- DBAX 8006 Week 1: Currency Test Discussion Post
- DBAX 8006 Week 2: Business Problem Shortlist
- DBAX 8006 Week 3: Claim-Sorted Source Base
- DBAX 8006 Week 4: Bounded Position Memo
- DBAX 8006 Week 5: Weighed Evidence Section
- DBAX 8006 Week 6: Buyback Counterargument
- DBAX 8006 Week 7: Scheduling Consequence Analysis
- DBAX 8006 Week 8: Noncompete Comparative Case
- DBAX 8006 Week 9: Sourced Peer Responses
- DBAX 8006 Week 11: Integrated Final Paper
- DBAX 8101 Week 10: Doctoral Revision Log
DBAX 8006 Week 10 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DBAX 8006 Week 10 sample paper?
The full audit, table and memo included, is free below.
How many claims does the DBAX 8006 Week 10 pass check?
Nineteen, with six shown in the table and thirteen kept as written.
What are the four outcomes for an overreaching claim?
Cut, narrowed, reattributed to coverage or kept with a reason.
What is the most serious pattern found?
Using a local labor-market finding to support a claim about individual firms.
How does the revised claim differ?
It limits firm growth findings to manufacturing and leaves software automation unestablished.