| Course | HLTH 8402 Applied Leadership and Multicultural Perspectives in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Counterargument brief |
| Length | About 690 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8402 Week 10
Counterargument Brief: The Case Older Residents of the Valley's Outlying Towns Would Make Against Moving Mobile Clinic Stops From Senior Housing to Farm Labor Camps, Argued Through Proportionate Universalism, and Whether the Plan Survives
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 8402: Applied Leadership and Multicultural Perspectives in Public Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Counterargument Brief: The Case Older Residents of the Valley's Outlying Towns Would Make Against Moving Mobile Clinic Stops From Senior Housing to Farm Labor Camps, Argued Through Proportionate Universalism, and Whether the Plan Survives
The Plan
The Caldera Valley district plans to move two of its mobile clinic's six weekly stops from senior housing complexes in two outlying towns to farm labor camps, so the van can reach farmworker families in the evening. The plan follows the district's population profile, which showed young families in the camps with high prenatal and immunization needs and little access to the district clinic. This brief builds the strongest case the older residents who lose those stops would make.
Who Loses Most
The residents of the two senior housing complexes are, on average, in their late seventies. Many do not drive. Some use walkers or wheelchairs. The van's stops gave them blood pressure checks, flu and shingles vaccines, medication reviews and a nurse they knew. The nearest district clinic is twelve miles away, and the county's on-demand transit requires booking a day ahead. For these residents, the van was the most accessible care they had.
The Counterargument
Trading One Underserved Group for Another
The residents' first argument is that the plan does not reduce inequity; it moves it. Older residents in outlying towns are also underserved, by distance, disability and isolation. A district that shifts a service from one disadvantaged group to another has chosen which group to fail rather than closing a gap.
Proportionate Universalism
The residents could invoke a principle the district itself has cited. Marmot et al. (2010) argued that to reduce health inequalities, actions must be universal but with a scale and intensity proportionate to the level of disadvantage. That is, services should reach everyone, with more for those who need more. The plan does the opposite in one respect: it ends a service for one group to give it to another. Proportionate universalism would call for adding stops for farmworker families while keeping a level of service for the senior complexes, perhaps less frequent, rather than removing it.
Who Was Asked
The residents could also point out that they were not asked. The plan was based on a population profile and data, and the farmworker families' needs were documented, but no one held a meeting at the senior complexes. A decision that weighs one group's needs through data and another group's through silence has not weighed them equally. Arnstein (1969) argued that participation means a real share of influence over decisions; residents who were never asked had none.
Visible Harm Versus Projected Benefit
Finally, the harm to older residents is immediate and certain: the stops end on a set date. The benefit to farmworker families is projected: it depends on whether families use the new evening stops. A cautious leader might hesitate to impose a certain loss for an uncertain gain.
Does the Plan Survive?
Weighing the arguments, the plan survives in modified form. The strongest argument is proportionate universalism. It does not show that serving the camps is wrong; it shows that ending service to the senior complexes is. The other arguments support that conclusion: the residents are also underserved, they were not consulted and their loss is certain.
The district should therefore change the plan in three ways. It should keep a reduced stop at each senior complex, every other week instead of weekly, rather than ending it. It should add the camp stops by extending the van's hours into the evening rather than by removing daytime stops, seeking funding for the added staff time. And it should hold meetings at both senior complexes before any change, explaining the reasons and asking what level of service residents need. The federal CLAS standards call for engaging communities in decisions about services (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013); that applies to older residents as much as to farmworker families.
What the Counterargument Changes
The original plan was right about who needed more and wrong about how to provide it. The counterargument does not defeat the plan's purpose. It changes its method from substitution to addition, which is what proportionate universalism asks.
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Marmot, M., Allen, J., Goldblatt, P., Boyce, T., McNeish, D., Grady, M., & Geddes, I. (2010). Fair society, healthy lives: The Marmot review. The Marmot Review. https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2013). National standards for culturally and linguistically appropriate services in health and health care. https://thinkculturalhealth.hhs.gov/clas/standards
What the HLTH 8402 Week 10 instructions ask for
This week's brief turns against the author's own plan and argues from the side of the group it disadvantages most. The brief should identify that group with evidence, describe their loss concretely and build their strongest arguments, using a principle from the course where it applies. Faculty expect the brief to decide honestly whether the plan survives, and if it does, how it must change. A counterargument that changes nothing suggests it was not taken seriously. Engaging the affected group directly is often part of the recommended change, so the decision is not made about people who were never asked. Describing the affected group's daily situation concretely, such as distance, transport and mobility, gives their case its full weight.
How the HLTH 8402 Week 10 example is put together
The plan section describes moving two stops from senior housing to labor camps and its basis in the population profile. A section describes the older residents and their access to care. Four counterarguments follow: trading one underserved group for another; proportionate universalism, citing Marmot and colleagues; the residents not being asked, citing Arnstein; and certain harm versus projected benefit. A section weighs the arguments and keeps the plan in modified form, with reduced senior stops, added evening camp stops and meetings at both complexes, citing the CLAS standards on engaging communities. A final section explains that the counterargument changes the method from substitution to addition.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 8402 Week 10 rubric
Counterargument briefs are judged by how strong a case they build for the losers and the honesty of the verdict. A brief that sets up weak objections, or concedes nothing, earns limited credit. The rubric rewards a concrete picture of the group's loss, arguments grounded in course principles and a verdict that changes the plan where the arguments succeed. Faculty value the use of a principle, such as proportionate universalism, that the plan's supporters would accept. Recommending engagement with the affected group shows consistency with the course. A brief that states which argument did the most work shows it was weighed, not just listed. Faculty notice whether the verdict names which argument changed the plan most, and whether the revised plan could be funded and staffed. A brief that ends with a plan to ask the affected group directly shows that the counterargument changed practice, not only the paper. Using a principle the plan's own supporters accept makes the counterargument hardest to dismiss.
HLTH 8402 Week 10 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often struggle to argue against their own plans and end up writing a defense with a few objections attached. Others choose a group the plan barely affects. To write a stronger brief, find the group that loses the most, using records where possible. Describe their loss in concrete terms. Build their best arguments, including principles you yourself accept. Weigh them honestly. Change the plan where they succeed, and say how. Recommend asking the affected group directly. If you would like a counterargument brief against a plan of your own, we can build one.
Get a HLTH 8402 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Share your plan or the one your section assigned, plus the Week 10 prompt and rubric; the desk argues the burdened group's side at full strength, then adds a response and revision, delivered in 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. If an instructor requires a different ratio between case and reply, the draft is proportioned accordingly.
More HLTH 8402 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8402 Week 1: Leading Across Difference Post
- HLTH 8402 Week 2: Training Versus Practice Post
- HLTH 8402 Week 3: Disaggregated Population Profile
- HLTH 8402 Week 4: Clinic Hours Leadership Case
- HLTH 8402 Week 5: Outreach Team Faultline Analysis
- HLTH 8402 Week 6: Missing Voices Peer Critique
- HLTH 8402 Week 7: Public Meeting Engagement Analysis
- HLTH 8402 Week 8: Language Access Discussion Post
- HLTH 8402 Week 9: Research Trust Analysis
- HLTH 8402 Week 11: Leadership Account Synthesis
- HLTH 8392 Week 10: Consolidation Communication Plan
- HLTH 8317 Week 10: Categorical Funding Brief
- HLTH 8247 Week 10: Replication Appraisal
- HLTH 8242 Week 10: Incentive Design Peer Critique
HLTH 8402 Week 10 questions, answered
How do I find the group my plan inconveniences most?
Look at who loses access, time, money or control under the plan, and use evidence where possible, such as service use records. The most inconvenienced group is often not the loudest one. Choosing it from data, rather than from who complained, makes your counterargument stronger and shows readers you did not pick an easy opponent.
What is proportionate universalism?
Michael Marmot's principle, from his work on health inequalities, that actions to improve health should be universal but delivered with a scale and intensity proportionate to the level of disadvantage. Applied here, it can challenge plans that move services from one group to another, arguing instead for capacity scaled across the gradient.
What if the counterargument wins?
Then the plan should change, or be withdrawn, and saying so is a legitimate ending. Readers expect a concession to cost the plan something visible. In the sample, conceding that the plan relocates disadvantage produces home visits and an alternating route. A response that concedes a point yet leaves your plan untouched invites the question of what the concession meant.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8402 Week 10 sample paper?
The complete Week 10 counterargument brief is reproduced here, arguing older residents' case against moving mobile clinic stops to labor camps through proportionate universalism, with three references.
Does the plan survive the counterargument?
Yes, in modified form: reduced stops continue at the senior complexes every other week, camp stops are added by extending the van's evening hours rather than removing daytime stops, and the district meets with residents at both complexes before any change.