This problem involves a critical comparison of opposing claims, analytical thinking, and problem-solving. For this pre-writing assignment, students will:
- Demonstrate an ability to explain in plain language, the logic they used to address this problem and how it led to the answer they provide,
- Demonstrate an ability to address the audiences described for this assignment using an appropriate tone
- Develop key elements of the writing assignment demonstrating an ability to include the correct information in each part of the document and complete the writing in a clear and concise way.
- Follow the instructions for organizing your document; Standardizing the assignment in this way will make it easier to complete peer reviews on each others’ work.
Step 1: Problem Definition
Answer the questions below. Put the answers in your document as a second appendix.
- What problem you have been asked to address? This is not a statistics question, therefore the answer is not about performing a certain calculation.
- What is the objective or outcome this work should produce? Again, this is not a statistics question, and will not be answered with a statistical approach.
- a) What hypothesis test is appropriate for this problem? b) What does it let you know about the problem that can inform your decision?
- To who have you have been asked to address this memorandum?
- Who else is likely to read the memorandum as part of the litigation process?
- a) What is the addressee likely to need from reading the memorandum? (This is a critical thinking exercise, ask yourself what the addressees’ responsibilities are and use that to think about what they need to know from you. If you are not familiar with this role lookup descriptions online. ) b) What tone is appropriate and how will you display it in your document?
- What is each of the other litigation participants likely to need from your document? b) What tone is appropriate and how will you display it in your document?
Step 2: Develop Key Elements
Download the Pre-Writing 3 Format Example. (attached with the question)
Using this sample document as well as the memorandum guide provided in the third assignment, develop the following memorandum elements. (Note: this is a different Memorandum Guide and format than you used on the first assignment.)
- Document Layout and Header. Format your document and develop a header and titles for the required sections. Complete the header content by reading the problem described below.
- Determine the Statistical Approach and Complete Statistical Analysis. To have the information necessary to complete the thesis statement you will need to complete the analysis and determine what your answer to the question posed will be. Include the calculations as the second appendix – ‘Appendix B’.
- Question Presented. Develop the language for the Question Presented section.
- Brief Answer. Develop the language for the Brief Answer section.
- Facts. Develop the language for the Facts section.
For the deliverable for this assignment, submit one document: the memorandum elements first, followed by the appendices each element on its own page(s).
This problem description covers what your final memorandum will address. Not all elements of this problem will be addressed in this deliverable, so, be sure to read the assignment directions.
You are being brought in as an expert witness in a class action lawsuit – Tierney v. True Car Parts. Using your engineering background you are being asked to provide an argument as to the liability or not of True Car Parts for the design and production of their shafts used in fuel pumps currently in many automobiles from multiple manufacturers.
Shaft wear in excess of 3.50 could lead to catastrophic failures of a certain model fuel pump in extreme weather conditions. Engineers for the manufacturer of the shafts claim that the shaft wear is within acceptable limits. Lawyers representing a class action legal suit filed against the company feel that recent vehicle failures for vehicles with this shaft are due to faulty bearings causing abnormal wear and, thus, feel that the company should pay for the necessary vehicle repair and parts replacement.
The amount of shaft wear (in microns.) after a simulated mileage of 250,000 miles was determined for each of n = 45 fuel pumps having copper lead as a bearing material, resulting in and s = 1.25. Use the appropriate hypothesis test at level .01 to determine if the shaft wear is within acceptable limits. Please state any assumption you have made, if necessary.
- Conduct the appropriate hypothesis test. What determined your choice of the alternative hypothesis? Whose claim would you support?
- Be sure to present in plain language the logic of your statistical approach clearly and completely to convince the Judge and jury of your position.
- Write your response as if you were presenting evidence as an unbiased expert witness.
Audience: Your document is addressed to the judge in the case – The Honorable Frida Harb, and copied (CC) to Michael Franks, Clerk of the Court
As the expert witness for this case, the jury who will be reviewing the case documents is an important audience even though they are not formally addressed in the document. This audience is assumed not to have the specific technical knowledge of the field the witness is explaining. The expert witness must persuade the audience of their expertise and their presentation of the case is the most credible assessment of the facts possible.
Officers of the court, legal advisories, and opposing expert witnesses are important secondary audiences, making it necessary to address any ideas that would counter your case and present why they do not disqualify your case.
Document: This document should present as a memorandum to the court in the case Tierney v. The True Car Parts Corporation.
Helpful link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/class_action