Four or five candidate problems, one table: the Week 2 shortlist records what each has been claimed to show publicly and what peer-reviewed work already exists, then keeps one. Searches like "dbax 8006 week 2 assignment example", "dbax8006 week 2 sample" and "dbax 8006 week 2 example" land here.
What a finished DBAX 8006 Week 2 problem shortlist looks like
Two to three pages, most of it a table with one row per candidate. Columns hold the problem framed as a question, the claim circulating in coverage, the strongest peer-reviewed study already published, the kind of design behind it, and the gap between claim and study. A worked row on open-plan offices reads cleanly: coverage says open floors improve collaboration, while Bernstein and Turban (2018) tracked employees at two firms through a move to open space and found face-to-face interaction fell. A row on the four-day week reads differently, with heavy coverage, pilot reports often run alongside advocacy groups, and few controlled comparisons. Beneath the table, a half page explains the choice, and the last paragraph identifies the runner-up and what would have to appear in print for it to win.
How a DBAX 8006 Week 2 example is structured
The shortlist is built to be read in one direction: from claim to evidence to choice. An opening paragraph states the selection rule before any candidate appears, which is that the chosen problem must already have enough peer-reviewed work to support a position, and enough disagreement to need one. The table follows, and its rows are ordered by the strength of the evidence rather than by interest, so the reader sees the ranking before the argument. Each row ends in a verdict cell of one or two words. The choice section defends the winner against the runner-up specifically, not against the whole field. A short limits paragraph admits which rows rest on a single study, and the references list separates peer-reviewed sources from the coverage recorded in the claim column.
The selection rule comes first
Stating the rule before the candidates keeps the choice honest. A reader who knows the test in advance, published work to argue from and live disagreement to argue about, can check each row against it instead of suspecting the winner was picked first and the rule written afterward.
The claim column quotes the coverage
Each candidate carries the assertion as it circulates publicly, attributed to the kind of outlet making it. Paraphrasing the claim into something milder is where shortlists go soft, because a softened claim is easier to support and no longer the claim anyone is arguing about.
Design is recorded, not just the finding
A field study at two firms, a national survey and a consultancy's client poll do not carry equal weight. The design column lets the reader see why one row outranks another even when both report the same direction of result.
Rows ordered by evidence strength
Ranking by interest puts the most talked-about problem on top, which is usually the one with the thinnest research base. Ordering by strength of evidence makes the table itself the first argument for the choice, before a word of prose defends it.
The runner-up gets a condition
The closing paragraph says what publication would reverse the choice, such as a controlled comparison of four-day schedules across matched firms. That sentence shows the shortlist was a judgment about evidence and not a preference dressed as one.
Where marks go in DBAX 8006 Week 2
The table does most of the earning. Rows that pair a quoted public claim with a named study and its design satisfy the evidence criteria almost at once, while rows listing topics with a source attached satisfy few of them. The heaviest judgment falls on the choice: whether the winner was selected by the stated rule and defended against the runner-up in particular. Shortlists that pick the most discussed problem and then search for support read as backward, and graders tend to notice because the ranking and the choice disagree. Credit also goes to candor about thin rows. Deductions follow a claim column that paraphrases coverage into safer language, a design column left blank, and a references list mixing journalism and peer-reviewed sources without marking which is which.
Get a DBAX 8006 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Pass along the Week 2 instructions with the rubric and any required number of candidates, and a finished shortlist with its evidence table comes back in 24-48h, free on a first request. Listing the problems already on your mind helps; the sample ranks its own set, and the choice among yours stays with you.
DBAX 8006 Week 2 questions, answered
How many candidates should the shortlist hold?
Four or five is the common range. Fewer makes the choice look predetermined, and more thins each row until the design column goes empty. What matters is spread in evidence strength: a shortlist where every candidate rests on the same kind of study cannot show the selection rule doing any work, because nothing separates the rows.
Can a candidate with no peer-reviewed evidence stay on the list?
It can stay, and the gap it records is informative in itself. A heavily covered problem with nothing controlled behind it shows how the public debate is being conducted: by assertion. It cannot win under the selection rule, and the verdict cell says so. Some sections award credit for making that absence plain rather than quietly dropping the row.
Does the choice have to be the candidate with the strongest evidence?
Not always. The strongest row may be settled already, which fails the test of a problem still open. The better pick is often the second row, where studies exist but disagree, so a position is actually needed rather than merely available. The choice section says why the top row was passed over, if it was.