PHIL/PHIX 1037 ANALSYSIS OF THE PROSPECTUS MINING PROJECT SUBMISSIONS

Assignment Task
Read and respond as instructed to the following:
1. Context Statement 2. Our Task 3. What You Need to Produce and Submit

2
Assignment Task
Read and respond as instructed to the following:
1. Context Statement 2. Our Task 3. What You Need to Produce and Submit.
1. Context Statement
In the remote and rural NSW communities of the Gulp River basin, there are growing
tensions around the possibility of a new coal mining licence being granted to the Prospectus
Group – a large international minerals and mining company. The plan is commonly referred
to as the Prospectus Mining Project, or (PMP).

We have been assigned to assist the Public Opinion and Local Interest Sub-Committee, and
you have been given the task of analysing two submissions – one from the Gulp River
Chamber of Commerce, and another from the influential local campaign group, the #No-To-
PMP Action Group. These two groups have very different perspectives on the PMP decision,
and were invited to submit a one-page summary of their views to our sub-committee. We
want you to take on the analysis and reporting for these two submissions.

What You Need to Produce and Submit.
1. A standardisation of the arguments used in the Gulp Rover Chamber of Commerce
submission, and the #No-To-PMP Action Group Submission
2. An 800-word analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the two arguments, as
you’ve standardised them. You should include:
a. Comment on the types of argument used (e.g. inductive, deductive, analogy,
causal claims), and their relative strengths.
b. Any problems in the arguments used (e.g. notable fallacies, unsupported or
poorly supported claims, judgements on whether any research they’ve
referred to is handled correctly and honestly etc.)
3. An 800-word analysis of the language, rhetoric, and possible biases used in the the
Gulp River Chamber of Commerce submission, and the #No-To-PMP Action Group
submission. This should reference the actual language of the submissions, not your
standardisations. You should include:
a. Comment on the tone and language (e.g. word choice, ambiguity, spin, jargon,
certainty and doubt, etc.)
b. Comment on possible biases in the arguments used (e.g. confirmation biases,
agreement biases etc.)
4. A 400-word “recommendation briefing” for the Head of Inquiry Board. How should
Professor Hook judge the two submissions? Which is the stronger case and why? She
will also need some suggestions for how to respond to the two groups in informing
them of her decisions. What should she be telling the two groups about why the final
decision agrees or disagrees with their preferred outcome?

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER BELOW TO GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT. See also, capstone project assignment help in UAE, UK, USA