Overview
Hi,
For this Case Evaluation 3, the assignment is to choose a new engineering-related article and analyze it using Aquinas. The paper needs to use two of Aquinas’s four cardinal virtues as the two universal principles for the syllogisms: prudence, justice, fortitude, or temperance.
The article must be different from the first two case evaluations. The question must begin with “Should” and should focus on one specific engineer/agent performing one specific engineering action. It should include one positive appeal and one negative appeal, and both appeals should be engineering-related and preferably measurable.
A good structure for the question is:
Should [single named agent] [perform one specific engineering action], in order to [one positive engineering appeal], even though [one negative engineering appeal]?
The most important thing is that the case must be about a real engineering/design/technical decision, not a business, legal, company, delivery, production, or management decision.
I’m also attaching the required files. The files already include the relevant pages you need:
- The Guidebook/rubric pages
- The Aquinas course reader pages
- My previous Case Evaluation #2
- The professor’s feedback on Case Evaluation #2
Please review the previous paper and the professor’s feedback carefully because the grade was not good, and I need this Case Evaluation 3 to avoid the same mistakes.
The main mistakes from the last paper were:
- The question/action was too business or management focused.
- The action did not require enough engineering/design knowledge.
- The positive appeal was a business concern instead of an engineering concern.
- The EDR was too narrative and needed more comparative or quantifiable statistics.
- The P2 explanations were more like summaries instead of judgments applying the principle.
- The evaluation and personal response needed more development and explanation.
For this Case Evaluation 3, please make sure:
- The article is about an engineering issue.
- The agent is one specific person, not a company.
- The action is specific, observable, and within the engineer’s control.
- The positive and negative appeals are technical/engineering concerns.
- The EDR is bullet-point based, with definitions and statistics, not a narrative.
- Each syllogism uses one Aquinas virtue as P1.
- The P2 explanation clearly judges how the principle applies to the action.
- The evaluation and personal response are developed enough and not too short.
Please follow the rubric closely and use the professor’s feedback to avoid the previous issues.