China-Taiwan dispute. Possible outcomes military attack, limited intervention, peaceful outcome. | Quick Homework Help

Can you help me understand this Political Science question?

When reporting the results of your analysis, it’s important to discuss the relative likelihood of all the hypotheses, not just the most likely one.Analytical judgments are never certain; there is

always a good possibility of their being wrong. Decision makers need to make decisions on the basis of a full set of alternative possibilities, not just the single most likely alternative.Contingency or fallback plans may be needed in case one of the less likely alternatives turns out to be true.When one recognizes the importance of proceeding by eliminating rather than confirming hypotheses, it becomes apparent that any written argument for a certain judgment is incomplete unless it also discusses alternative judgments that were considered and why they were rejected.In the past, this was seldom done.

1.Overview.Based on your analysis, create a narrative essay for political and military decision-makers describing the full set of alternative possibilities.

2. Instructions. Prepare a six page essay ranking the three hypotheses (from most likely to occur to the least likely to occur).The narrative essay must meet the criteria contained in the week six lessons folder.

.

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)

Note: A conclusion is not required

Citations-Turabian Format

(a) If a citation comes directly from the PRC-Taiwan scenario students are only required to place the citation in quotations; no Turabian style citation is required.

(b) If a citation comes from a source other than the PRC-Taiwan scenario, then it must be cited using the Turabian 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) Possible35-44% chance

(e) Unlikely16-34% chance

(f) Highly Unlikely0-15%

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.