Closing the course, the Week 11 ethics argument carries a single difficult case to a defended conclusion, answers its strongest rival, and states the cost the author accepts. Searches like "mgmt 8825m week 11 assignment example", "mgmt8825m week 11 sample" and "mgmt 8825m week 11 example" land here.
What a finished MGMT 8825M Week 11 ethics argument looks like
The position arrives on page one of a twelve-to-fifteen-page paper with an abstract: an employer should not let facial and vocal analysis score interview candidates, even where it outpredicts human screeners. The background section describes the practice as vendors present it. Barrett et al. (2019) provide the empirical premise, a review concluding that facial movements do not reliably and specifically reveal emotional states across people and contexts. Raghavan, Barocas, Kleinberg and Levy (2020) supply evidence on how vendors describe their bias-mitigation claims. The rival section gives full strength to Kleinberg, Ludwig, Mullainathan and Sunstein (2018), who argued that well-regulated algorithms can make discrimination easier to detect than human judgment does. The cost section concedes what the position gives up. The conclusion keeps what the literature supports apart from what the author proposes.
How a MGMT 8825M Week 11 example is structured
The opening pages, abstract included, give the case, the position, and the principle it rests on. A background section describes the practice neutrally, including the performance claims made for it. The principle section restates the author's governing principle from earlier weeks and explains why it applies to hiring. The argument proceeds in two parts: an empirical part showing what the scoring can and cannot measure, and a normative part arguing that even accurate prediction does not license judging candidates on inferred inner states. The rival section presents the case for algorithmic hiring at full strength and answers it, conceding what cannot be answered. The cost section names what the employer and some applicants lose under the position. The conclusion separates supported claims from proposals, and references follow.
The position on page one
Worded so a careful reader could reject it. From the first page a reader knows what the paper claims and what evidence would count against it.
Two kinds of argument, kept apart
What the technology can measure is an empirical question; whether accurate prediction licenses the practice is a normative one. The paper answers each on its own terms.
The rival at full strength
The case that algorithms can reduce discrimination is presented as its authors would make it. The paper answers what it can and concedes what it cannot.
What the position costs
Some predictive accuracy forgone, higher screening costs, and perhaps some applicants a human screener would overlook. The paper names these and says why it accepts them.
Supported, then proposed
Published evidence and the author's own proposals are labeled separately in the conclusion, leaving a skeptical reader free to grant the first and fight the second.
Where marks go in MGMT 8825M Week 11
The final argument is graded on whether its position survives the strongest objection. A paper that condemns the practice without meeting the case for it, or that ends by balancing considerations, stays in the middle of the scale whatever its bibliography. Markers read the principle section to confirm the position follows from a stated principle rather than from distaste. The empirical part is checked for accurate use of sources: a review showing that facial movements are unreliable indicators of emotion should not be stretched into a claim about every hiring tool. The rival section carries heavy weight at doctoral level, as does the cost section. In the conclusion, readers look for the literature's support kept distinct from the author's proposal, and an abstract that hides the position costs marks.
Get a MGMT 8825M Week 11 example written to your instructions
Pass along the final-week guidelines and rubric, the hard case you mean to argue, and comments your instructor left on earlier papers. A full ethics argument arrives inside 24-48h, and the first one is free. If a particular case or position is required, say so, and the sample's case is rebuilt around that requirement.
MGMT 8825M Week 11 questions, answered
Can the final argument defend using the technology?
Yes. A position favoring the practice, under stated conditions, is as defensible as one opposing it, provided it meets the strongest objection. Such a paper would need to answer the empirical critique of emotion inference and the problem of candidates who cannot contest a score. The grading follows the quality of the defense, not the direction of the conclusion.
How is the Week 11 argument different from the Week 8 position memo?
The memo advised one decision-maker on one case within a few pages. The final argument is a scholarly paper: its position must be generalizable beyond the case, grounded in a developed principle, tested against the literature, and answerable to objections at length. The memo showed the author could choose; the final paper shows the choice can be defended to a skeptical academic reader.
Which hard cases work best for the closing argument?
Ones where a system delivers a real benefit, the benefit is measurable, and the objection is principled rather than practical. Automated interview scoring, predictive screening in public services, and autonomous systems allocating scarce resources all qualify. Cases where the system simply fails make weaker papers, since there is nothing difficult to argue. The case should make the author's position cost something.