Traced back from the returning note, the second pass locates the cause in how chapter two is organized, not in the gap paragraph, and revises there. Searches like "dbax 8101 week 6 assignment example", "dbax8101 week 6 sample" and "dbax 8101 week 6 example" land here.
What a finished DBAX 8101 Week 6 second pass looks like
Three parts. The first quotes the note twice, as it arrived before and after the earlier revision, and sets the revised gap paragraph beside it: tighter wording, three new sources, the same complaint. The second part is a cause trace. It follows the gap claim through the document and finds that chapter one promises a gap in research on owners' competitive strategies, while chapter two is organized around consumer studies of why shoppers choose bookstores. The review never surveys strategy research, so the closing gap paragraph asserts an absence the chapter has not shown. Argyris and Schon's distinction between single-loop and double-loop learning names what happened: the first revision corrected the paragraph without questioning the structure that produced it. The third part is the repair, a new review section on small-retailer strategy studies, plus a note to the mentor.
How a DBAX 8101 Week 6 example is structured
The pass is arranged as an investigation, and its order matters because each part licenses the next. The note comes first in both its appearances, with the earlier revision between them, making plain that the fix changed the paragraph and not the reader's response. The cause trace follows and runs longest. It moves from the paragraph to the claim it makes, from the claim to the chapter one promise it repeats, and from that promise to the review structure that was supposed to support it, stopping at the first point where the document fails to do what it says. The learning distinction is cited at that point, once. The repair comes last and is placed at the cause, not the symptom: a new review section, with the gap paragraph shortened to summarize what that section shows.
The same note, twice
Before the revision the mentor wrote that the gap was unclear; after it, that the gap was still unclear. Quoting both beside the revised paragraph shows the change was real and the reader's judgment unmoved.
A trace that walks backward
The gap paragraph repeats chapter one's promise of a gap in strategy research. Chapter two, organized around consumer studies, never surveys that research. The trace stops there, because that is the first place the document claims more than it shows.
Single loop and double loop
Argyris and Schon separate correcting an action from questioning the assumptions behind it. The first revision corrected the paragraph and left the review's structure unquestioned, which is why the note came back unchanged.
Repair at the cause
A new review section surveys studies of small-retailer competitive strategy and states what they leave unexamined for independent bookstores. The gap paragraph then shrinks to a summary of what that section has already shown.
A note to the mentor
Four sentences accompany the revision: what the earlier fix changed, why it missed, where the cause was found, and where the new section sits. The note explains the move without asking the mentor to reread everything.
Where marks go in DBAX 8101 Week 6
Graders look for the trace, and a second pass that simply rewrites the same paragraph again has answered the returning note with the method that already failed. The cause trace is where marks gather: each step from symptom to source should be shown, with the location named, so the reader can follow the reasoning and check it against the draft. The stopping point is judged carefully, since tracing too far can blame the whole design when the fault is one chapter's organization. The Argyris and Schon citation earns credit when it explains why the earlier fix failed, and reads as ornament when it merely labels it. The repair is weighed on placement: work done at the cause earns more than extra work at the symptom. A brief, specific note to the mentor rounds out the strongest submissions.
Get a DBAX 8101 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 6 prompt and rubric, the note that came back, and a sentence on what your last revision changed. A second pass with the note in both appearances, a cause trace and a repair at the source is back within 24-48h, the first at no cost. Its bookstore study is invented; tracing your own note to its cause is your work.
DBAX 8101 Week 6 questions, answered
How far back should a cause trace go?
To the first place where the document claims something it has not yet shown, and no further. Going beyond that point tends to turn a fixable problem into doubt about the whole study. In this case the trace stopped at chapter two's organization, because the chapter one promise was sound and the method did not depend on the missing review section.
Is a returning note a sign the mentor is being unreasonable?
Rarely. More often it means the note described a symptom the mentor could see, while the cause sat somewhere the mentor was not pointing. Mentors read the passage in front of them; tracing the cause is the author's work. When a note returns unchanged after an honest revision, the revision was probably correct about the sentence and wrong about the source.
Should the revision explain the change to the mentor or let the text speak?
Both, briefly. The revised text has to carry the answer on its own, since the committee will never see a cover note. But a mentor who flagged a paragraph twice will look there first, and a few sentences explaining that the fix moved to a new section save a confused third reading. The note points; the text persuades.