This Week 2 claim selection example for MBAX 6710 narrows three technology claims to one about routine work, kept because national labor surveys have counted the workers it describes. Searches like "mbax 6710 week 2 assignment example", "mbax6710 week 2 sample" and "mbax 6710 week 2 example" land here.
What a finished MBAX 6710 Week 2 claim selection looks like
About two pages, and it reads like a sieve. A table lists three candidates: that phones in classrooms lower reading comprehension among young teens, that social platforms weaken civic participation, and that automating routine tasks hollows out middle-skill employment. Each meets the same four questions. Is the population defined, has anyone measured it at scale, does the measure track the outcome named, and does data exist from before the technology spread? The classroom claim fails on scale, since the evidence the author located came from single schools. The civic claim fails on measurement, because participation is defined in too many incompatible ways to add up. The third survives all four. A closing paragraph restates it in working form, naming occupations, employment share as the outcome, and the decades labor data covers.
How a MBAX 6710 Week 2 example is structured
A selection paper earns its keep by showing the rejections, so the losing candidates receive almost as much space as the winner. Criteria are fixed in the opening paragraph before any candidate appears, which prevents the familiar pattern of inventing a test the preferred claim happens to pass. Inside the table those criteria run in identical order, one row per claim and one column per question. Below it, each rejection gets a short paragraph saying which test failed and what evidence could rescue the claim later in the term. The survivor is restated last in a tighter form than it first took, with population, technology, outcome and period all specified, so the literature search that follows has boundaries. Nothing after the restatement argues that the claim is true; that burden belongs to later weeks.
Four questions, fixed first
Population, scale, a measure matched to the outcome, and data from before the technology spread. Every candidate meets them in the same order.
Three candidates in one table
Classroom phones, civic participation and routine automation each take a row. Cells hold short reasons rather than ticks, so any verdict can be disputed.
Two argued rejections
Each failed claim gets a paragraph naming the test it missed and the evidence that would let it return later in the term.
The survivor, restated tightly
Occupations defined by routine tasks, employment share as the outcome, and the decades labor surveys cover. Causation is deliberately left open.
Where marks go in MBAX 6710 Week 2
Scope is what markers look for first in an early selection task, and this example makes its scope checkable in one sentence. Rubrics that ask for a researchable question are really asking whether the claim names a counted group, a measurable outcome and a period, and the working statement at the end supplies all three. Another common criterion concerns reasoning, answered here by rejections that cite a specific failed test rather than a preference. Marks drain away fast at this stage. A claim about technology and society in general cannot be tested and earns little. A selection that shows only the winner hides the judgment being assessed. And a working claim that already asserts causation has skipped ahead, borrowing a certainty the evidence has not yet supplied.
Get a MBAX 6710 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Bring the Week 2 prompt, the rubric, and whatever candidate claims you are weighing, rough ones included. The desk runs them through a stated sieve and returns a selection paper with every rejection argued, free for a first request and ready in 24-48 hours. The sieve works on the candidates you list; none are swapped in behind your back.
MBAX 6710 Week 2 questions, answered
Why keep the rejected claims in the paper?
Because the selection itself is what Week 2 assesses. A page showing only the chosen claim asks the reader to trust that alternatives were weighed, while a table of rejections shows the judgment at work. If your prompt caps length, the rejections can shrink to a sentence each, but cutting them entirely usually costs the reasoning criterion on your rubric.
Is middle-skill the author's own term?
No. It comes from labor economics, where jobs are often grouped by wage or schooling into low, middle and high tiers. The example defines it by routine task content, following Autor's task-based framework, where growth at both ends around a thinning middle is called job polarization. Your paper should state which definition it uses, since grouping jobs by wage and by schooling does not always sort the same occupations together.
Can the chosen claim be one the author doubts?
It can, and that often produces sharper work. Selection asks whether a claim is testable, not whether you believe it. The example happens to choose a claim its author leans toward, which later weeks then have to discipline. Choosing one you doubt simply reverses the pressure, since your later sections must then give the supporting studies a fair hearing.