| Course | HLTH 9101 Dissertation |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Argument audit |
| Length | About 550 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 9101 Week 2
Argument Audit: Seven Links From Older Adults Going Without Behavioral Health Care to a Recommendation for Broadband Expansion, Each Quoted From a Composite County-Level Dissertation, With Two Bends and One Break Located
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 9101: Dissertation
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Argument Audit: Seven Links From Older Adults Going Without Behavioral Health Care to a Recommendation for Broadband Expansion, Each Quoted From a Composite County-Level Dissertation, With Two Bends and One Break Located
Purpose
A dissertation's argument is a chain. If any link fails, the conclusion does not follow, however strong the other links are. This audit walks the seven links in a composite county-level dissertation that begins with older adults going without behavioral health care and ends by recommending broadband expansion. Each link is quoted from the draft, judged and, where needed, repaired. Booth et al. (2016) describe an argument as a claim supported by reasons and evidence, with warrants connecting them; the audit asks whether each link supplies those parts.
The Chain
Table 1
Seven Links in the Dissertation's Argument
| Link | Quoted claim (chapter) | Verdict | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | "Many older adults with behavioral health needs receive no treatment." (Ch. 1) | Holds; supported by cited national data | |
| 2 | "Telehealth can reduce travel and stigma barriers to behavioral health care." (Ch. 1) | Holds as a claim about potential | |
| 3 | "Telehealth requires reliable internet at home." (Ch. 2) | Bends; true for video, not for audio-only visits | |
| 4 | "Counties with lower broadband subscription have less telehealth use." (Ch. 2, hypothesis) | Holds as a hypothesis | |
| 5 | "The outcome is the percentage of seniors' behavioral visits that happen remotely." (Ch. 3) | Breaks; counts only people who already received care | |
| 6 | "Higher broadband subscription was associated with a higher telehealth share." (Ch. 4) | Holds as a county-level association | |
| 7 | "Expanding broadband would bring older adults into behavioral health care." (Ch. 5) | Bends; causal and individual-level claim from an ecological association | |
Quotations are from the composite dissertation's current draft.
The Break
Link 5 is where the chain breaks. The argument begins with people who receive no care, link 1, but the outcome measures the share of visits delivered by telehealth among people who had at least one behavioral health visit. Someone who received no care contributes nothing to the numerator or the denominator. The outcome therefore cannot show whether broadband brings untreated older adults into care; it can show only how care was delivered to those already receiving it.
The repair requires either changing the outcome or changing the claim. A different outcome, the number of older adults per 1,000 beneficiaries with any behavioral health visit, would reach the untreated. If the data do not allow that, the problem statement must be narrowed to the mode of care among people already in treatment, and link 1 should be replaced.
The Bends
Link 3 bends because claims-based telehealth includes audio-only visits, which need no internet. Chen et al. (2022) found that nearly half of patients using telehealth in one system used phone visits only, and that low broadband access reduced the probability of video use. The chapter should say that broadband is expected to matter mainly for video visits.
Link 7 bends because a county-level association cannot establish what would happen to individuals if broadband expanded. Robinson (1950) showed that correlations between groups can differ greatly from correlations among the individuals within them. The recommendation should be stated as a hypothesis for individual-level or intervention research.
What Changes
Chapter 1's problem statement, chapter 3's outcome definition and chapter 5's recommendation all need revision, and the revisions must agree.
References
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.
Chen, J., Li, K. Y., Andino, J., Hill, C. E., Ng, S., Steppe, E., & Ellimoottil, C. (2022). Predictors of audio-only versus video telehealth visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 37(5), 1138-1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07172-y
Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15(3), 351-357. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087176
What the HLTH 9101 Week 2 instructions ask for
Students audit the logical chain of their dissertation's argument, from the problem to the conclusion. Faculty expect each link to be stated, ideally quoted from the draft with its chapter, and judged for whether it holds. The strongest audits distinguish a break, where the conclusion cannot follow without changing the study or the claim, from a bend, where wording overstates or blurs what the evidence supports. Each fault should be explained with reference to the study's design or to relevant literature. Faculty value audits that propose specific repairs and identify every chapter the repair would touch, since a fix in one place often requires changes elsewhere. A table listing links, quotations and verdicts is an efficient format for this assignment.
Inside the HLTH 9101 Week 2 example
The audit opens by describing the dissertation as a chain and citing Booth and colleagues on claims, reasons, evidence and warrants. Table 1 quotes seven links from chapters 1 through 5 and gives a verdict for each. A section explains the break at link 5, showing that untreated older adults are absent from both numerator and denominator, and offers two repairs: a different outcome or a narrower problem. A section explains the bend at link 3 using Chen and colleagues on phone-only care and the bend at link 7 using Robinson on ecological correlations. A closing section lists the chapters that must change together: the problem statement, the outcome definition and the recommendation.
HLTH 9101 Week 2 rubric: what earns full marks
Precision in locating faults decides this grade. Saying the argument has weaknesses earns nothing; quoting the exact link that fails and explaining why does. Graders reward the distinction between a break and a bend because it tells the author which repairs are mandatory. Explanations should rest on the study's design, such as what the outcome counts, or on cited literature, such as the ecological inference problem. Repairs earn credit when they are specific and when the audit recognizes that they ripple across chapters. A clear table helps a committee member see the chain at a glance. Accurate quotation of the draft is checked, since an audit built on paraphrase can miss the very wording that causes the fault.
HLTH 9101 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Argument audits often comment on chapters one at a time, which misses the links between them. To write a stronger audit, write your argument as a numbered chain, from the problem to the recommendation, and quote the sentence in your draft that carries each link. Ask of each link whether your design and data actually support it. Mark faults as breaks or bends. For each break, propose a repair to the study or the claim. For each bend, propose new wording. List every chapter each repair would touch. If your argument has a different shape, an audit of your own chain can be prepared from your draft.
Get a HLTH 9101 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Include your problem statement, research question, outcome definition and closing claims, with the Week 2 audit prompt and rubric. The chain is audited link by link from problem to claim, each handoff graded and every break explained with its two possible repairs. Nothing is billed for a first audit, returned within 24 to 48 hours. The counties and claims file are hypothetical.
More HLTH 9101 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 9101 Week 1: Dissertation Progress Post
- HLTH 9101 Week 3: Literature Synthesis Section
- HLTH 9101 Week 4: Literature Review Chapter Draft
- HLTH 9101 Week 5: Reproducible Method Write-Up
- HLTH 9101 Week 6: Key Term Audit
- HLTH 9101 Week 7: County Findings Chapter
- HLTH 9101 Week 8: Dissertation Discussion Draft
- HLTH 9101 Week 9: Manuscript Consistency Peer Replies
- HLTH 9101 Week 10: Revision by Subtraction
- HLTH 9101 Week 11: Full Dissertation Read
- HLTH 8815 Week 2: Diagnosis or Function Post
- HLTH 8745 Week 2: Wound Healing Mechanism Brief
- HLTH 8701 Week 2: Collectivism Construct Definition
- HLTH 8574 Week 2: Treatment Barrier Post
HLTH 9101 Week 2 questions, answered
How is an argument audit different from comparing the first and last chapters?
Comparing ends tells you whether they match; the audit tells you where they stopped matching. In the example the opening and closing both talk about older adults and broadband, and look aligned. Only by walking the middle links does the break appear, at the outcome measure. If your prompt asks only for the ends, the middle links still explain whatever mismatch you find there.
Where can I find a free HLTH 9101 Week 2 sample paper?
The complete Week 2 argument audit is shown here, walking seven quoted links in a composite dissertation's argument and locating one break and two bends, with three references.
Why is link 5 a break rather than a bend?
The outcome counts only visits among people already receiving behavioral health care, so people without care never enter the data. No rewording can make it measure whether broadband reaches the untreated; the outcome or the claim must change.
What is the difference between a break and a bend?
A break means the conclusion cannot follow without changing the study or the claim. A bend means the wording overstates or blurs what the evidence supports and can be fixed by revising the sentence.
Should the audit propose repairs?
Yes. The example proposes two repairs for the break, a different outcome or a narrower problem statement, and new wording for each bend, and it lists the chapters each repair would affect.