DBAX 8006 Week 4 Bounded Position Memo Example

Contemporary Challenges in Business Walden University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This DBAX 8006 Week 4 position memo example commits to one bounded claim on a contested business question and explains why the evidence supports holding it. Walden DBAX 8006 asks students to take a position, so the memo, addressed to a composite regional restaurant association before a city council vote, states that a phased increase in the minimum wage from $16 to $19 over three years is unlikely to cost measurable limited-service jobs. It explains each limit on the claim. Cengiz, Dube, Lindner and Zipperer's study of 138 state increases and Card and Krueger's New Jersey comparison support it. Neumark and Shirley's review and the Seattle study by Jardim and colleagues are set out as the opposing evidence, and the memo explains why they bound rather than overturn the claim. Hours and prices are flagged for monitoring; the memo models position writing for the Doctor of Business Administration (DBA).

CourseDBAX 8006 Contemporary Challenges in Business
WeekWeek 4
Paper typePosition memo
LengthAbout 620 words, 4 pages
FormatMemo, APA 7 citations
SchoolWalden University
ProgramDoctor of Business Administration (DBA)
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for DBAX 8006 Week 4

1

Memorandum

To: Board of Directors, Riverside County Restaurant Association

From: Policy Analyst, DBA Candidate

Date: February 9, 2026

Re: Proposed phased minimum wage increase and limited-service restaurant employment

 

Position

A phased increase of the size the city council is considering, from $16 to $19 an hour over three years, is unlikely to produce measurable job losses at limited-service restaurants in the city. This claim is limited in three ways. It concerns limited-service restaurants, such as counter-service and fast-food outlets, not full-service restaurants. It concerns an increase of about 19 percent phased over three years, not a larger or immediate one. And "measurable" means detectable in employment counts over the phase-in period, not that no individual restaurant will cut hours or close.

What this page is doingThe memo states one claim with its limits in the first paragraph, because a position without bounds cannot be defended.
2

Why the Evidence Supports This Claim

The modern evidence on minimum wages has shifted from comparing a few places to studying many increases at once. Cengiz et al. (2019) examined 138 state-level minimum wage increases in the United States and counted jobs paying just below and just above the new minimum. They found that the number of jobs paying below the new minimum fell, as expected, but the number paying at or slightly above it rose by about as much, leaving the total number of low-wage jobs essentially unchanged over five years. Their sample included increases of a similar size to the one proposed here.

Earlier, Card and Krueger (1994) compared fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and neighboring Pennsylvania after New Jersey raised its minimum wage and found no decline in employment in New Jersey. That study was disputed at the time and its methods have been criticized, but later studies with different designs have generally reached similar conclusions for moderate increases.

Where the Evidence Is Disputed

The evidence is not unanimous. Neumark and Shirley (2022) reviewed the U.S. minimum wage literature and concluded that most studies find some negative employment effects for the least-skilled workers, though often small. Jardim et al. (2022) studied Seattle's increase to $13 an hour and found that hours worked in low-wage jobs fell enough that total earnings for low-wage workers declined, though the effect of the earlier increase to $11 was much smaller. The Seattle results suggest that effects may grow as the minimum rises relative to local wages, which is a reason to keep the claim bounded to an increase of this size.

What this page is doingThe memo states the opposing evidence plainly, because a board will hear it from others.
3

Why the Claim Is Defensible Now

Three conditions make the claim defensible rather than merely arguable. First, the proposed increase is phased over three years, which gives restaurants time to adjust prices, schedules and turnover rather than cutting staff at once. Second, the increase is moderate relative to local wages; many limited-service restaurants in the city already pay above $16 to fill positions. Third, the largest multi-event study covers increases of this size and finds no net job loss. The claim would not be defensible for an immediate increase to $20 or more, where the evidence is thinner and Seattle's results raise real concerns.

What the Association Should Watch

If the increase passes, the association should track hours as well as headcount, since restaurants may respond by reducing hours rather than jobs. It should also watch prices, which studies often find rise modestly after minimum wage increases. These measures would show whether the increase is working as the evidence predicts or whether local conditions differ.

Recommendation

The association should not oppose the phased increase on the ground that it will cost jobs at limited-service restaurants, because the best available evidence does not support that prediction for an increase of this size. It may reasonably raise other concerns, such as the effect on margins or on full-service restaurants, which this memo does not address.

References

Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1994). Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review, 84(4), 772-793.

Cengiz, D., Dube, A., Lindner, A., & Zipperer, B. (2019). The effect of minimum wages on low-wage jobs. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(3), 1405-1454. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz014

Jardim, E., Long, M. C., Plotnick, R., van Inwegen, E., Vigdor, J., & Wething, H. (2022). Minimum-wage increases and low-wage employment: Evidence from Seattle. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(2), 263-314. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20180578

Neumark, D., & Shirley, P. (2022). Myth or measurement: What does the new minimum wage research say about minimum wages and job loss in the United States? Industrial Relations, 61(4), 384-417. https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12306

What the DBAX 8006 Week 4 instructions ask for

Week 4 asks you to write a memo committing to one position on your problem. Open with the position and pin down its limits: which organizations, what size of change, what outcome and over what period. Explain the evidence that supports the claim and why its design is credible for this situation. Present the opposing evidence plainly, and explain whether it overturns the claim or only bounds it. State the conditions that make the claim defensible now and when it would stop being defensible. Close with a recommendation and anything the reader should monitor if they act on it, so the memo can be tested against what happens next.

How the DBAX 8006 Week 4 example is put together

The memo opens with the bounded position and three limits: limited-service restaurants, a 19 percent phased increase and measurable employment effects. A section presents Cengiz and colleagues' many-state study and Card and Krueger's comparison. A section presents Neumark and Shirley's review and Jardim and colleagues' Seattle findings, noting that effects may grow with larger increases. A section explains why phasing, size and the multi-state evidence make the claim defensible and when it would not be. A section names hours and prices as things to watch. A recommendation closes the memo and notes concerns it does not address. The memo names the size of increase at which its claim would stop holding, which gives the board a clear boundary.

Where the marks sit in the DBAX 8006 Week 4 rubric

Position memos earn credit for a claim bounded tightly enough to defend. A position with explicit limits in the first paragraph is weighted heavily. Evidence presented with attention to design and fit with the situation shows judgment. Presenting the opposing evidence plainly, and explaining how it bounds the claim, demonstrates intellectual honesty. Stating when the claim would stop being defensible shows awareness of its limits. Monitoring suggestions make the memo practical. Memos that state broad positions, cite only supportive evidence or dismiss opposing studies without engaging them tend to receive lower marks. A memo a board could read in five minutes and still understand the limits is the target. Naming the outcomes a reader should track after acting on the memo shows the position is meant to be tested in practice.

DBAX 8006 Week 4 help from the desk

Write your position, then add every limit it needs to be true: which firms, what size of change, which outcome, what time frame. Read it aloud and ask whether a skeptic could find a case that breaks it; if so, add a limit. Then gather the strongest evidence for the claim and the strongest against it. Explain how the opposing evidence narrows your claim rather than pretending it does not exist. Students often write positions too broad to defend, then spend the memo hedging. Others leave out the studies that disagree. Say what would change your mind. If you are unsure how tightly to bound your claim, our writers can test it against the literature with you.

Get a DBAX 8006 Week 4 example written to your instructions

Include the Week 4 memo instructions and rubric, plus the audience your section names if it names one; a position memo with its support and timing sections arrives in 24-48h, free the first time. Tell the desk which side you lean toward. The sample commits to its own position, and yours still has to be argued from your sources.

Request this week free All DBAX 8006 weeks Finished samples

More DBAX 8006 papers and DBA samples

DBAX 8006 Week 4 questions, answered

Where can I find a free DBAX 8006 Week 4 sample paper?

The bounded position memo is reproduced below and is free to read.

What does the DBAX 8006 Week 4 memo claim?

A phased increase from $16 to $19 is unlikely to cause measurable job losses at limited-service restaurants.

What evidence supports it?

A study of 138 state-level increases that found no net loss of low-wage jobs.

What evidence opposes it?

A review finding mostly negative estimates and a Seattle study showing reduced hours after a larger increase.

What should the association watch?

Hours as well as headcount, and menu prices.