PUBH 4900 Week 2 Answerable Question Memo Example

Course	PUBH 4900 Capstone in Public Health
Week	Week 2
Paper type	Answerable question memo
Length	About 630 words, 4 pages
Format	Memo, APA 7 citations
School	Walden University
Program	BS in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PUBH 4900 Week 2

Memorandum

To: Capstone Instructor

From: BS in Public Health Capstone Student

Date: Month Day, Year

Re: Approval of the capstone question and the test that will settle it

The Question

Does the published evidence support the claim that San Francisco's comprehensive restriction on flavored tobacco sales, enforced from January 2019, increased past-30-day cigarette smoking among the city's high school students younger than 18?

What Each Part Fixes

Table 1

Boundaries of the Question

Element	Fixed as	Why \|
Population	San Francisco high school students younger than 18	The group the original analysis studied (Friedman, 2021) \|
Exposure	The citywide restriction on all flavored tobacco, including menthol	San Francisco's policy applied to all products and retailers with no exceptions (Vyas et al., 2021) \|
Outcome	Past-30-day cigarette smoking	The outcome reported in the original analysis \|
Time	Enforcement from January 2019	Compliance checks began in December 2018 (Vyas et al., 2021) \|
Claim tested	A causal increase in smoking	The claim opponents of flavor restrictions have repeated \|

Note. The capstone evaluates evidence; it does not collect new survey data.

What this page is doingTabulating the boundaries early gives the instructor a fixed reference to check the final paper against.

The Objection This Memo Answers

An instructor might reasonably say that a student cannot settle a causal question that trained researchers have disputed. That is true if the question were "Did the policy raise smoking?" It is not the question. The question asks whether the evidence supports a specific claim. That can be closed, because the claim rests on one analysis whose validity depends on a checkable fact: whether the 2019 San Francisco survey was given before or after the policy was enforced.

What Would Settle It

If the Timing Holds

If the San Francisco survey was given after enforcement, the original analysis stands as a legitimate, if single, estimate. The capstone would then weigh it against other evidence.

If the Timing Fails

If the survey was given before enforcement, the estimate cannot measure the policy's effect, and the claim is unsupported by that analysis regardless of the rise it found. A published communication reports that the city's 2019 survey was fielded from September to December 2018, before enforcement in January 2019 (Liu et al., 2023), and the original author later published a correction clarifying survey wave dates (Friedman, 2022).

What Would Count Against My Expectation

I expect the timing to fail, but I will treat the question as open until I have read the correction and the methods description. If the correction shows the San Francisco wave included spring 2019 respondents, my expected answer would change.

What the Capstone Will Not Do

It will not estimate the policy's true effect on smoking. No public dataset I can reach measures San Francisco students after enforcement with the detail a new estimate would need, and pretending otherwise would widen the question past what the evidence allows. It will not judge flavor restrictions in general, though it will note what reviews of other cities found. It will not address vaping, since the district survey's vaping items did not separate nicotine from cannabis in those years (Friedman, 2021). Holding these lines is what keeps the final verdict small enough to defend.

What this page is doingListing what the project declines to do protects the question from the gradual widening instructors warn about.

Where the Evidence Will Come From

The original analysis and its correction, the communication disputing it, a compliance study from the city's health department, a retail sales study and a review of local flavor restriction evaluations. All are published and available through the library.

Why the Question Matters

Hundreds of US localities have adopted flavored tobacco restrictions, and evaluations of them vary in quality (Rogers et al., 2022). A single finding that a restriction raised youth smoking carries weight in those debates. Whether it can bear that weight is a question with consequences.

Request

Approval of the question as worded above, with the understanding that it will not widen in later weeks.

References

Friedman, A. S. (2021). A difference-in-differences analysis of youth smoking and a ban on sales of flavored tobacco products in San Francisco, California. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(8), 863-865. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.0922

Friedman, A. S. (2022). Clarification and correction of survey wave collection dates in an analysis of youth smoking and a ban on sales of flavored tobacco products in San Francisco, California. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(9), 947. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.2388

Liu, J., Hartman, L., Tan, A. S. L., & Winickoff, J. P. (2023). Youth tobacco use before and after flavoured tobacco sales restrictions in Oakland, California and San Francisco, California. Tobacco Control, 32(e1), e118-e120. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057135

Rogers, T., Brown, E. M., Siegel-Reamer, L., Rahman, B., Feld, A. L., Patel, M., Vallone, D., & Schillo, B. A. (2022). A comprehensive qualitative review of studies evaluating the impact of local US laws restricting the sale of flavored and menthol tobacco products. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 24(4), 433-443. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntab188

Vyas, P., Ling, P., Gordon, B., Callewaert, J., Dang, A., Smith, D., Chan, B., & Glantz, S. (2021). Compliance with San Francisco's flavoured tobacco sales prohibition. Tobacco Control, 30(2), 227-230. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055549

PUBH 4900 Week 2 instructions, in plain terms

Question memos ask students to present the final wording of their capstone question and to argue that it can be answered with reachable evidence. Instructors expect each element of the question to be fixed and justified, along with a description of the evidence and what result would settle the question. Many prompts ask students to anticipate an objection to feasibility. Memos are usually addressed to the instructor and cite a handful of sources. Strong memos also state what would prove the student's expected answer wrong. Some sections attach a template asking for population, intervention or exposure, comparison, outcome and time. Others ask for a short paragraph defending the question's value. Either way, the wording approved in this week becomes the standard the final paper is graded against, so precision matters more here than in any other early assignment.

Inside the PUBH 4900 Week 2 example

The memo states the question and fixes its population, exposure, outcome, time and claim in a table. A section answers the feasibility objection by separating a causal question from a question about whether evidence supports a claim. Subsections describe what each answer would look like if the survey timing holds or fails, and what would count against the student's expectation. A section lists what the capstone will not do, followed by the sources and why the question matters. The memo closes with a request for approval. The memo deliberately separates the question it asks from a broader causal question it does not ask, which is the move that makes the project feasible. It also names a specific result, spring 2019 respondents in the San Francisco wave, that would change the expected answer, so the instructor can see the student is not simply confirming a belief.

Reading the PUBH 4900 Week 2 rubric

Question memos are scored on precision, feasibility, falsifiability and scope control. Precision credit requires every element of the question to be fixed. Feasibility credit comes from naming reachable sources and the deciding fact. Falsifiability credit rewards stating what would reverse the expected answer. Scope credit comes from listing exclusions. Sources must be current and relevant to the specific question rather than the general topic. Memos that distinguish between a question about the world and a question about the evidence earn particular credit in appraisal capstones. A clear request for approval of exact wording also signals that the student understands the question will be held fixed.

PUBH 4900 Week 2 help from the desk

Question memos often defend the topic instead of the question. Write the final wording and fix each element. Name the single fact or finding that would settle it. Say what result would prove you wrong. List what you will not cover. Address the most likely objection to feasibility directly. Ask for approval of the exact wording. A free question memo for your capstone can be requested. Hand the question to a friend outside the program and see whether they can name the data that would settle it. If not, revise until they could. Keep a copy of the approved wording at the top of every later draft so you can check for drift.

Get a PUBH 4900 Week 2 example written to your instructions

Share the Week 2 prompt, the rubric and the question you have chosen, even in rough form. A custom memo returns in 24-48h, the first free, defending that question against the strongest charge it faces. Query settings are described but left without results; the rates stay for you to retrieve from the source itself.

More PUBH 4900 papers and BS in Public Health samples

PUBH 4900 Week 2 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 4900 Week 2 sample paper?

The full Week 2 answerable question memo is shown above, defending a capstone question on San Francisco's flavored tobacco restriction and naming the fact that settles it.

Can a student answer a question researchers disagree about?

Yes, if the question asks whether evidence supports a claim and that depends on a checkable fact, such as when data were collected.

Why fix the population, exposure, outcome and time?

Fixing them keeps the question from widening and lets the instructor check the final paper against the approved wording.

What does falsifiable mean for a capstone question?

The student names a result that would reverse the expected answer before looking at the evidence in detail.

Why list what the capstone will not do?

It prevents the gradual drift that turns a focused project into a broad and unfinished review.