Instructions
INTL401 Week Six Paper
Based on your analysis of the PRC-Taiwan scenario, prepare a six-page narrative essay ranking the three hypotheses (from most likely to occur to the least likely to occur). All papers must follow the narrative format discussed in this week’s lesson. You are encourage to use the headers below, but do NOT write this as an outline. Remember, ACH Step 7 is the most important step of all and accounts for a significant portion of your course grade.
General Requirements
1. Document Format.
a. MS Word document
b. One-inch (1”) margins
c. Times New Roman Font
d. Twelve (12) pitch
2. Citation Format: The Chicago Manual of Style. As stated in the Academic Integrity Briefings, information taken directly from another source must be placed in quotations and cited following the CMS format contained in the week one “lessons” folder.
3. Graphics are not allowed.
4. As stated in the grading rubric, students must (1) employ imaginative approaches to answer the question being asked; (2) display an impressive command of the subject matter beyond the immediately obvious; (3) demonstrate a high level of critical thinking y reflection current and world views, and genuine intellectual development; and (4) excel in explaining all major points using multiple examples from the course readings or individual research.
Title Page.
(a) Title of the paper: The PRC-Taiwan Crisis; Assessing Alternative Outcomes
(b) Student Name.
(c) Course Number.
(d) Instructor Name.
(e) Date the paper was completed.
Length: Minimum of six pages, no more than seven pages (double spaced, not including the title page and Selected Bibliography).
Section I: Introduction.
(a) This section briefly summarizes the scenario and the three potential outcomes (Diplomatic Solution or Limited Intervention or Direct Attack).
Section II–Outcome Assessed to be most likely to Occur: [enter outcome here]
(a) Provide insight as to how you arrived at your conclusion.
(b) Provide examples from the ACH Matrix supporting and refuting each hypothesis (Step #3).
(c) Identify the “linchpin” evidence and discuss how it ultimately drove your analysis (Step #4).
(d) State the underlying assumptions associated with your linchpin evidence (Step #6)
Section III– Second Most Likely to Occur: [enter outcome here]
(a) Provide insight as to how you arrived at your conclusion.
(b) Provide examples from the ACH Matrix supporting and refuting each hypothesis (Step #3).
(c) Identify the “linchpin” evidence and discuss how it ultimately drove your analysis (Step #4).
(d) State the underlying assumptions associated with your linchpin evidence (Step #6)
Section IV- Least Likely to Occur: [enter outcome here]
(a) Provide insight as to how you arrived at your conclusion.
(b) Provide examples from the ACH Matrix supporting and refuting each hypothesis (Step #3).
(c) Identify the “linchpin” evidence and discuss how it ultimately drove your analysis (Step #4).
(d) State the underlying assumptions associated with your linchpin evidence (Step #6)
Section V: Conclusion
Citations – The Chicago Manual of Style Format
(a) If a citation comes directly from the PRC-Taiwan scenario, no citation is required.
(b) If a citation comes from a source other than the PRC-Taiwan scenario, then it must be cited using the CMS format.
(c) A Selected Bibliography is required only if information contained in a report comes from a source other than the PRC-Taiwan scenario. The Selected Bibliography contains all sources consulted and cited in preparing your paper.
Analytical Terms of Reference
Papers must incorporate the following analytical standards which are common
throughout the Intelligence Community. These standards equate to the “content/subject knowledge,” “critical thinking,” and “writing conventions” section of the grading rubric.
Terms of Estimative Probability. The narrative essay should be limited to the terms of estimative probability listed below. Please note, the terms and percentages are designed to provide students with a numerical range of probability and standardize submissions to allow for class comparisons.
(a) Highly Likely + 85% chance
(b) Probable 60-84% chance
(c) About Even 45-55% chance
(d) Possible 35-44% chance
(e) Unlikely 16-34% chance
(f) Highly Unlikely 0-15%
Objectivity: Analysis should be free of emotional content, give due regard to alternative perspectives and contrary reporting, and acknowledge developments that necessitate adjustments to analytic judgments.
Independent of Political Considerations: Assessments should not distort or alter with the intent of supporting or advocating a particular policy, political viewpoint, or audience.
Based on All Available Sources of Intelligence: Analysis should be informed by all relevant information that is available to the analytic element. Knowledge gaps must be identified.
Properly describes quality and reliability of underlying sources: Accurately characterize the information in the underlying sources and explain which information proved key to analytic judgments and why. Factors affecting the weighting that the analysts gives to available, relevant information, such as denial and deception, source access, source motivations and bias, or age and continued currency of information, or other factors affecting the quality and potential reliability of the information, should be included in the product.
Properly distinguished between underlying intelligence and analysts’ assumptions and judgments: Identify underlying causes and/or behavior of systems, people, organizations, states, or conditions. Assumptions comprise the foundational premises on which the information and logical argumentation build to reach analytic conclusions. Judgments are defined as logical inferences from the available information or the results of explicit tests of hypotheses. They comprise the conclusions of the analysts.
Uses logical argumentation. The presentation should facilitate clear understanding of the information and reasoning underlying analytic judgments. Key points should be effectively supported by information or, for more speculative warning by coherent reasoning. Language and syntax should convey meaning unambiguously.
Analytical Terms of Reference
Papers must incorporate the following analytical standards which are common
throughout the Intelligence Community. These standards equate to the “content/subject knowledge,” “critical thinking,” and “writing conventions” section of the grading rubric.
Terms of Estimative Probability. The narrative essay should be limited to the terms of estimative probability listed below. Please note, the terms and percentages are designed to provide students with a numerical range of probability and standardize submissions to allow for class comparisons.
(a) Highly Likely + 85% chance
(b) Probable 60-84% chance
(c) About Even 45-55% chance
(d) Possible 35-44% chance
(e) Unlikely 16-34% chance
(f) Highly Unlikely 0-15%
Objectivity: Analysis should be free of emotional content, give due regard to alternative perspectives and contrary reporting, and acknowledge developments that necessitate adjustments to analytic judgments.
Independent of Political Considerations: Assessments should not distort or alter with the intent of supporting or advocating a particular policy, political viewpoint, or audience.
Based on All Available Sources of Intelligence: Analysis should be informed by all relevant information that is available to the analytic element. Knowledge gaps must be identified.
Properly describes quality and reliability of underlying sources: Accurately characterize the information in the underlying sources and explain which information proved key to analytic judgments and why. Factors affecting the weighting that the analysts gives to available, relevant information, such as denial and deception, source access, source motivations and bias, or age and continued currency of information, or other factors affecting the quality and potential reliability of the information, should be included in the product.
Properly distinguished between underlying intelligence and analysts’ assumptions and judgments: Identify underlying causes and/or behavior of systems, people, organizations, states, or conditions. Assumptions comprise the foundational premises on which the information and logical argumentation build to reach analytic conclusions. Judgments are defined as logical inferences from the available information or the results of explicit tests of hypotheses. They comprise the conclusions of the analysts.
Uses logical argumentation. The presentation should facilitate clear understanding of the information and reasoning underlying analytic judgments. Key points should be effectively supported by information or, for more speculative warning by coherent reasoning. Language and syntax should convey meaning unambiguously.
*** I have attached ACH Steps 1-6 *** one is a screenshot then other is the one labeled order ID. Please let me know if you need any other info. I’ve also attached the lesson and required readings.
Surprise Attack (SA)
Chapters 2 & 3