<p><span style="font-size:18px"><strong>Issue Prompt:</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:18px">Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.<br />
Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.</span></p>
<p><em><span style="font-size:18px">Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.</span></em></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:18px"><strong>Argument Prompt:</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:18px">The following appeared in a memo at XYZ company.<br />
"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating résumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:18px"><em>Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.</em></span></p>
