| Course | PHLT 8006 Foundations of Doctoral Success in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Topic memo |
| Length | About 610 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHLT 8006 Week 9
Memorandum
To: Course Instructor
From: Doctoral Student
Date: Month Day, Year
Re: Narrowing alcohol minimum pricing to a researchable dissertation question
Starting Point
My interest is whether a price floor on alcohol lowers harm and whether it belongs on any American state's agenda. That is a policy interest, not a dissertation question. A researchable question needs a population, a problem and evidence that could actually be collected or obtained within a doctoral program.
Candidate One: Would Minimum Pricing Reduce Alcohol-Attributable Deaths in a U.S. State?
Population: adults in one U.S. state. Problem: alcohol-attributable deaths. Evidence: no U.S. state has a minimum price per unit of alcohol, so no observed outcome exists. The question could be answered only through a simulation model adapted from the British models (Holmes et al., 2014). That is possible, but it would depend on assumptions about U.S. drinkers' price responses that I could not test, and building a validated model is a large undertaking for one dissertation.
Candidate Two: How Would a Minimum Price Change Alcohol Purchases Among the Lowest-Income Households in a U.S. State?
Population: households in the lowest income quintile in one state. Problem: whether a minimum price would fall mainly on heavy-buying households, as in Scotland, or on low-income moderate buyers, as critics fear. Evidence: household scanner panels in the United States record products, prices and quantities purchased by thousands of households, with income. I could identify products priced below a hypothetical floor and estimate which households buy them and how much. Observed purchasing patterns would let me check, in a U.S. setting, the British result that the biggest-buying homes changed most (Anderson et al., 2021).
The Choice
I choose Candidate Two. It names a specific population, a problem central to the policy debate and evidence that exists and can be obtained. It also builds directly on the strongest evidence I have appraised this term: the household purchase studies (O'Donnell et al., 2019; Anderson et al., 2021). Candidate One remains a possible later study once I understand U.S. purchasing patterns well enough to inform a model.
The Question
Among households in the lowest income quintile in one U.S. state, what share of alcohol purchases by volume would fall below a minimum price of a set amount per standard drink, and how is that exposure distributed between households that buy the most alcohol and those that buy little?
What the Question Cannot Answer
It cannot show how households would respond if the policy were introduced, since no price change will occur in the data. It describes exposure, not effect. It also cannot capture alcohol bought outside the panel or by people not in panel households, such as people experiencing homelessness, whose responses Hughes et al. (2023) suggest may differ.
Why This Question Matters for Policy
The distributional question sits at the center of the political debate about minimum pricing. Opponents argue that a price floor taxes the pleasures of poor people who drink moderately; supporters argue that it targets heavy drinkers whose purchases cause most harm. In Britain, evidence from modeling and from household panels has largely supported the second view. In the United States, where cheap alcohol is sold through different channels and at different prices, nobody has checked. A clear description of who buys the products a floor would affect would give state legislators the first U.S. evidence on the question they are most likely to ask.
Next Steps
1. Confirm access to a U.S. household scanner panel through the university.
2. Define a standard drink and a range of plausible minimum prices.
3. Draft a short proposal for my advisor.
References
Anderson, P., O'Donnell, A., Kaner, E., Llopis, E. J., Manthey, J., & Rehm, J. (2021). Impact of minimum unit pricing on alcohol purchases in Scotland and Wales: Controlled interrupted time series analyses. The Lancet Public Health, 6(8), e557-e565. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00052-9
Holmes, J., Meng, Y., Meier, P. S., Brennan, A., Angus, C., Campbell-Burton, A., Guo, Y., Hill-McManus, D., & Purshouse, R. C. (2014). Effects of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on different income and socioeconomic groups: A modelling study. The Lancet, 383(9929), 1655-1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62417-4
Hughes, J., Livingston, W., Buykx, P., Johnston, A., Little, S., McCarthy, T., McLean, A., Perkins, A., Wright, A., & Holmes, J. (2023). Views on minimum unit pricing for alcohol before its introduction among people with alcohol dependence in Scotland: A qualitative interview study. Drug and Alcohol Review, 42(6), 1338-1348. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13704
O'Donnell, A., Anderson, P., Jané-Llopis, E., Manthey, J., Kaner, E., & Rehm, J. (2019). Immediate impact of minimum unit pricing on alcohol purchases in Scotland: Controlled interrupted time series analysis for 2015-18. BMJ, 366, Article l5274. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5274
PHLT 8006 Week 9 instructions, in plain terms
Students write a memo that narrows a broad interest into a researchable dissertation question. Faculty expect the memo to define what makes a question researchable, commonly a population, a problem and obtainable evidence, and then to apply that test to at least two candidate questions. The strongest memos show a plausible candidate failing for a stated reason, which makes the chosen question more credible. Faculty value questions that build on evidence the student has appraised and that address a recognized gap. The memo should state the chosen question precisely, say what it cannot answer and propose concrete next steps. Tying the question to the debate legislators are actually having strengthens the case for it.
How this PHLT 8006 Week 9 example is built
The memo opens by stating the three requirements. A section tests the first candidate, deaths in a U.S. state, and explains why it would require a model adapted from Holmes and colleagues. A section tests the second candidate, exposure of lowest-income households, and explains how U.S. household scanner panels could test the distributional pattern Anderson and colleagues observed. A section chooses the second candidate, linking it to O'Donnell and colleagues. The chosen question is stated precisely. A section names what it cannot answer, citing Hughes and colleagues on people outside household panels. A section explains the policy relevance, and three next steps close the memo. The memo's last lines turn the choice into three dated tasks, beginning with confirming access to a scanner panel through the university library.
Where the marks sit in the PHLT 8006 Week 9 rubric
Graders assess whether the narrowing is transparent and the chosen question researchable. Memos that announce a question without showing alternatives earn less than memos that test candidates against stated criteria. A rejected candidate with a clear reason adds credibility. The chosen question should name a population, a problem and data that exist. Linking the question to appraised evidence and to a recognized gap shows the course's skills at work. Stating limits honestly is valued. Concrete next steps show the student is ready to act. Clear memo structure and accurate citations complete a strong submission. Questions that cannot be answered with data the student could obtain, however interesting, are marked down at this stage.
PHLT 8006 Week 9 help from the desk
Topic memos often state a question without showing how it was chosen or whether data exist to answer it. To write a stronger memo, list your criteria for a researchable question. Write two or three candidate questions and test each. Explain why the weaker ones fail. State your chosen question precisely, naming population, problem and data. Say what it cannot answer. Explain why it matters. List your next steps. A topic memo that narrows your own interest can be written for your program. Share the chosen question with your advisor early, since access to data often decides which candidate survives.
Get a PHLT 8006 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Send the broad interest you are working from, the Week 9 prompt and the rubric, and mention any population you already have in mind. Two candidate questions are tested for you and one is carried forward. Free the first time, delivered in 24 to 48 hours, with the criteria table filled in so the choice can be challenged.
More PHLT 8006 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PHLT 8006 Week 1: Evidence-Honest Question Post
- PHLT 8006 Week 2: Research Habits Memo
- PHLT 8006 Week 3: Single Study Appraisal
- PHLT 8006 Week 4: Weighted Annotated Bibliography
- PHLT 8006 Week 5: Evidence-Focused Peer Replies
- PHLT 8006 Week 6: Seven-Study Evidence Table
- PHLT 8006 Week 7: Scaled Claim Argument Memo
- PHLT 8006 Week 8: Admired Model Critique
- PHLT 8006 Week 10: Policy Literature Synthesis
- PHLT 8006 Week 11: Evidence-Scaled Position Paper
- HLTH 9101 Week 9: Manuscript Consistency Peer Replies
- HLTH 8815 Week 9: Meals Access Service Review
- HLTH 8745 Week 9: Fear-Avoidance Pain Analysis
- HLTH 8701 Week 9: Evidence Sampling Appraisal
PHLT 8006 Week 9 questions, answered
Does choosing a topic in Week 9 lock in a dissertation subject?
No. Doctoral topics move for years, and nobody grades this memo as a binding commitment. What faculty assess is the reasoning that turned an interest into a question: whether the population, outcome and data are named, and whether the gap is shown rather than asserted. A well-reasoned memo on a topic you later abandon still did its job.
Why include a question that gets rejected?
Because the rejected candidate is what makes the chosen one credible. Showing a plausible rival failing on a specific criterion, here the lack of linked weight data, demonstrates that the choice followed reasons. Readers at this level trust a decision more when they can see the alternative it beat, and the table makes that comparison quick to verify.
Where can I find a free PHLT 8006 Week 9 sample paper?
The full Week 9 topic memo appears here, testing two candidate dissertation questions on alcohol minimum pricing and choosing one about exposure among the lowest-income U.S. households, with four references.
Why was the question about deaths rejected?
No U.S. state has a minimum unit price for alcohol, so no observed outcome exists. Answering it would require a simulation model adapted from British models, built on assumptions about U.S. drinkers that could not be tested in one dissertation.
What evidence would the chosen question use?
U.S. household scanner panels, which record the products, prices and quantities households buy along with household income, would show which households buy alcohol priced below a hypothetical floor and how much.