Read three Harvard Business Review articles and choose 2 to use when developing initial comment and peer-to-peer replies.

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

GET A 40% DISCOUNT ON YOU FIRST ORDER

ORDER NOW DISCOUNT CODE >>>> WELCOME40

Prerequisites:
Read three Harvard Business Review articles and choose 2 to use when developing initial comment and peer-to-peer replies.
Minimum Participation Required:
1 Original Comment
2 Replies to Discussion Group Members
INSTRUCTIONS:
Choose 2 negotiations focused Harvard Business Review articles linked above. Read the articles.
Original Comment:
– Describe three significant concepts you found compelling, disturbing or interesting between the two chosen articles.
– Indicate any common themes or ideas that are shared between the two articles you chose – or – one of the articles and content in the course text about negotiations.
– Indicate why information shared might be thought of as compelling, disturbing or interesting from an employee’s perspective.
Discussion Member Replies: Actively look for original comments where the author describes concepts that you didn’t communicate in your original comment. Think critically about new information that you receive from the Discussion Group Member. React to comment content with an evident knowledge base.
GENDER
Gender Can Be a Bigger
Factor than Race in Raise
Negotiations
by Kerry Jones
SEPTEMBER 01, 2016
Vincent Tsui for HBR
Earlier this year, a study from my team at Fractl looked at difficult conversations in the workplace.
Our research included a troubling, yet unsurprising, finding: women are less comfortable negotiating
a raise than men.
COPYRIGHT © 2016 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2
In a follow-up study, which is an extension of our ongoing research on workplace issues, we
examined the relationship between gender, race, and asking for a salary increase. As part of our
research, we surveyed a racially diverse group of 550 African-Americans, 550 Asian-Americans, 550
Hispanic/Latino Americans, and 350 white Americans about raise negotiations. Our survey found that
men are more comfortable requesting a raise, that they are more likely to have asked for a raise
during their careers, and that they ask for more money than women. While gender was a bigger factor
than race in salary negotiations, we found significant racial differences as well. And when examining
race and gender together, there were multiplicative effects.
Just over half of our survey respondents have asked for a raise at some point in their career. As we
found before, men are more likely to ask for a raise than women. And when it comes to differences
among racial backgrounds, white Americans were the most likely to have asked for a salary increase
while Asian Americans were the least likely.
The effects multiply when we factor in both gender and race. The biggest disparity: white men are 1.8
times more likely than Asian-American women to have asked for a raise. Across all racial
backgrounds, the men were more likely to have asked for a raise than women, although AsianAmerican
men were not far ahead of the average for all women. Nearly the same percentage of white,
Hispanic or Latina, and black women have asked for raises.
We also asked how comfortable people were asking for raises at their current employers. AfricanAmericans
were most likely to feel comfortable asking for a raise at their current job. Seventy percent
of black men and 64% of black women said they were at least somewhat comfortable asking for a
raise. Our data show this level of comfort does not translate into action for the women, however,
considering that just 47% of black female respondents have asked for a raise during their career.
COPYRIGHT © 2016 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 3
Similarly, although black men are most comfortable asking for a raise, they are less likely than white
men to have asked for a raise before. If black men and women are the most comfortable asking for a
raise, why aren’t they asking? Although this question has no simple answer, a possible explanation is
they aren’t confident a raise would be granted.
As we saw in our previous study, overall, men are more comfortable than women when it comes to
asking for a raise. Asian-American men are the exception to this, with African-American and
Hispanic/Latina women more comfortable asking for a raise than Asian men. Asian men are also
significantly less comfortable than men of other racial backgrounds, with 48% of Asian men feeling at
least somewhat comfortable requesting a raise, compared with more than 60% of white, Hispanic/
Latino, and African-American men. But Asian men are not the least comfortable group – that
distinction goes to white women and Asian women. For some perspective, African-American men are
about 1.7 times more likely to feel comfortable asking for a raise than white women and Asian
women.
What accounts for these differences? Cultural upbringing and expectations probably play a role.
“Culturally, people of Asian-American background place a high value on respecting authority and not
creating con†ict,” says Dr. Sondra Thiederman, a consultant and speaker on unconscious bias and
author of Three Keys to Defeating Unconscious Bias. At the other end of the spectrum, she points out
that white men are culturally conditioned to be assertive.
We also wondered if people might be more comfortable negotiating with a boss who looked like
them. More than half of all respondents said they would indeed be more comfortable negotiating a
raise with someone of the same gender or race as them. Negotiating with someone who is the same
gender is slightly more preferable than someone of the same race: About 38% of respondents said
COPYRIGHT © 2016 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 4
gender wouldn’t make a difference, compared with 41% who said race wouldn’t make a difference
when it comes to who they’re negotiating with.
While there weren’t any sizable differences between genders on these questions, the differences
become greater when we segment the results by race. Sixty-two percent of African-Americans said
they’d be more comfortable asking for a raise from someone who is the same race as them. Hispanic
or Latino Americans were close behind with 58% saying they’d be more comfortable. About 50% of
Asian Americans and just under half of white Americans would feel more comfortable asking
someone of the same race for a raise. One-third of African-American respondents said that the race of
the person they negotiate with wouldn’t make a difference, compared with just over half of white
respondents.
COPYRIGHT © 2016 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 5
A key finding from our survey may partially explain the preference for negotiating with someone of
the same race or gender: More than a third of female respondents believe they’ve been passed up for
a raise on account of their gender or race. Perhaps women feel they are less likely to be rejected if the
person across the negotiation table looks like them. While white women were most likely to think
their gender played a role in a denied raise request, non-white women were more likely to believe a
raise was denied due to their race or a combination of factors.
Kerry Jones is the Inbound Marketing Manager at Fractl, where she specializes in content marketing featuring their
proprietary research.
COPYRIGHT © 2016 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 6
Copyright of Harvard Business Review Digital Articles is the property of Harvard Business
School Publication Corp. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
INFLUENCE
Prioritize Your Life Before
Your Manager Does It for
You
by Greg McKeown
JUNE 01, 2015
In their several years of working together, Jin-Yung had never really negotiated with her manager.
She would simply say yes even if it threw her life into temporary turmoil, as it often did. She had
given unknowable hours to executing every request and task, diligently delivering them in neat and
complete packages, no matter the sacri€ce.
COPYRIGHT © 2015 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2
After attending a workshop I was teaching on “essentialism,” or the disciplined pursuit of less, she
decided to create a social contract to draw some boundaries at work. Speci€cally, it outlined how she
could increase her productivity at work while also having €ve days oƒ of work to focus entirely on
preparing for her upcoming wedding. Jin-Yung’s manager agreed to the terms she presented and was
surprised and delighted when she put in several especially-focused days and completed her usual
work ahead of schedule. This allowed Jin-Yung the chance to immerse herself in the uninterrupted
days of wedding planning that her boss had agreed to.
However, in the midst of her wedding planning, her manager asked her to take on an additional
project prior to an upcoming board meeting because someone else on the team had dropped the ball.
This time, instead of capitulating to pressure from her manager, she pointed to the social contract
and said words to the eƒect, “I would love to help with this project and I can see that this is a
problem. However, we came to a clear agreement on this and I have completed my side of the
bargain. I have planned for this time, I have worked hard for it and I deserve to have it…guilt-free!”
She then spent €ve days immersed in preparing for her big day.
At €rst, her boss was fuming. But after laboring over the task herself for days, she saw all sorts of
†aws in the way she’d been managing the team. She soon realized that if she wanted to be a more
eƒective manager, she needed to pull in the reins, and get clear with each member of the team about
expectations, accountability, and outcomes: basically to set up a social contract with every member
of the team. Jin-Yung not only opened her manager’s eyes to unhealthy team dynamics and opened
up a space for change, she did it in a way that earned her respect.
Jin-Yung was so aƒected by this experience that she decided to incorporate the experience into her
vows, promising that she would prioritize her relationship with her husband above all others.
Many of us are faced with similar high-stakes negotiations with our managers when we want a raise,
a stretch assignment, †ex time, or the ability to work from home. Here are three rules for negotiating
for what you need more eƒectively:
Rule 1: You can’t negotiate if you don’t know what you want.
It never ceases to amaze me how often I ask people, “What do you really want?” and they look at me
blankly, unable to articulate the answer. It’s not that they don’t want things, it’s just that they don’t
have a high level of clarity regarding the matter.
This matters because our work life doesn’t take place in a neutral vacuum. What we spend our time
doing is the result of a dynamic interaction between internal clarity (what we want to do) and
external pressure (what other people want us to do). Indeed, our era is distinguished not so much by
information overload, but by opinion overload. To ensure that our own voice is not lost in the noise
around us, we need to know what we really want. If we don’t get really clear about that, then other
people will €ll the void with their agendas.
COPYRIGHT © 2015 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 3
Rule 2: Clarity is the beginning of all empowerment.
Key to Jin-Yung’s story was creating a social contract which clearly articulated what she would do, by
when, and what the positive and negative consequences would be for compliance and
noncompliance. By getting clear about this, she was able to better negotiate what not to focus on
both before her €ve-day leave and while she was on it.
Here are the six most important questions to answer when writing out a social contract:
• What is the most important, mutually bene€cial, desired result over the next X period of time?
• Why is this important?
• What needs to be eliminated, deferred or reduced?
• What resources need to be reallocated or increased?
• When will we get together to review progress?
• What are the consequences (positive or negative) for performance or nonperformance?
Rule 3: Speak in terms of your manager’s agenda (not your own).
Especially when working with busy executives, there is little point in simply talking about what you
want. They are often so focused and burdened with their own agenda that an additional request,
however valid, can feel like an additional pressure or a burden. With a little preparation, you can
express the same desires in a way that is aligned with your manager’s agenda, thus signi€cantly
increasing the chance that you will be heard and that the negotiation will go well, as shown in the
chart below.
COPYRIGHT © 2015 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 4
None of these examples is perfect, but each illustrates how much better it is to start with your
manager’s agenda. The truth is that to get anyone to act, we have to create an eager desire in the
other person by speaking to what he or she wants most.
By following these three rules, we can be better negotiators at work, we can make that critical shift
from “order taker” to “trusted advisor,” and we can learn to better balance our lives.
Greg McKeown is the author of the New York Times bestseller Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less and speaks
50 times a year at major companies and conferences. He recently launched The Essential Forum where people come
together every 90 days to design their highest contribution. Greg did his graduate work at Stanford. Connect
@GregoryMcKeown.
COPYRIGHT © 2015 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 5
Copyright of Harvard Business Review Digital Articles is the property of Harvard Business
School Publication Corp. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
MANAGING YOURSELF
The Two Conversations
You’re Having When You
Negotiate
by Andy Molinsky
APRIL 05, 2016
ANDREW NGUYEN/HBR STAFF
You’re in the middle of a heated debate with your colleague. You want to come across as confident,
but inside you feel like Bambi. During these difficult situations, there are actually two conversations
happening at the same time. One is obvious: It’s the conversation out there in the world that we
typically focus on — with our colleague, client, boss, subordinate, or friend. And the other is the
equally important conversation — or, more typically, the negotiation — we’re conducting inside
ourselves about the extent to which we’re willing and able to stretch beyond our comfort zones. The
COPYRIGHT © 2016 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2
interesting thing is that you can apply some of the very same strategies you’d use for difficult
conversations with someone else to the negotiations occurring within yourself.
Strategy #1: Question your position.
With someone else: One of the most common pieces of advice for negotiating with another person is
to dig beneath the surface of your “stated” position — as well as that of your colleague — to find
interests you may have in common, which can lead to a mutually beneficial solution.
Within yourself: You can apply this exact same strategy within yourself as well, especially to
situations where you experience internal resistance to stepping outside your comfort zone. For
example, your “position” might be that you’re unwilling to consider being more assertive, but could
you dig a little deeper to ask yourself why? Is it an emotional challenge? Are you afraid of being
assertive? Or is it a skill-based challenge? Do you not actually know how to be more assertive? Getting
to the bottom of why you’re unwilling to step outside your comfort zone is the first step.
Strategy #2: Keep your cool.
With someone else: One of the biggest challenges of negotiation is keeping your cool. When you get
angry or frustrated and lash out at the other person, it’s unlikely the negotiation will end up going
very well.
Within yourself: Again, this very same advice works internally as well. If you don’t regulate your
emotions internally, it will be very hard externally to achieve a solution that meets your interests. For
example, if your feelings of sympathy get out of whack, you might end up caving in when you don’t
need to, or you might have a difficult time delivering a negative message that might be critical for
standing up to your interests. If your anxiety gets out of control, that, too, might make it difficult to
stand your ground, or even to have the flexibility to consider creative solutions to a win-win type of
agreement. When we are very anxious, psychology research says we end up “narrowing” instead of
broadening. That makes it hard to be creative in our negotiation strategy and difficult to have a
positive outlook on the negotiation itself, which research has shown to be important for effectively
handling these situations.
Strategy #3: Search for win-win solutions.
With someone else: When negotiating with someone else, we’re often looking for “win-win”
solutions. The agreement is more likely to stick when both sides get something of value from it.
Within yourself: This same idea of win-win can also apply to negotiations you have with yourself. Is
there a way for you to step outside your comfort zone, act in a way that you know is necessary but
feels uncomfortable for you — and (this is the key) do it on your own terms? In other words, create
that win-win inside yourself. For example, you might know you need to lay down the law and be
tough, but you might only feel comfortable doing it if you first praise the other person or preface your
remark with a genuinely felt, “I’m really sorry about this, but…” The point is that there are a myriad
of ways you can personalize or adjust your style to get the job done on your terms. And by creating
COPYRIGHT © 2016 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 3
this win-win inside yourself, you’ll have an even better chance of finding that middle ground with
the other person you’re dealing with.
In the end, we all want to stand up for what we believe in and get what we deserve in any difficult
conversation. But it’s critical to realize that in most situations there are really two difficult
conversations happening at the same time. Unless you recognize and manage both effectively, you’ll
have a challenging time achieving your ultimate goals.
Andy Molinsky is a Professor of International Management and Organizational Behavior at the Brandeis International
Business School. He is the author of Global Dexterity (HBR Press, 2013) and the forthcoming book Reach: A New Strategy
to Help You Step Outside Your Comfort Zone, Rise to the Challenge, and Build Confidence (Penguin, 2017). You can
receive his free e-book to master ten key cultural codes from around the world. Follow Andy on Twitter: @andymolinsky.
COPYRIGHT © 2016 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 4
Copyright of Harvard Business Review Digital Articles is the property of Harvard Business
School Publication Corp. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
NEGOTIATIONS
When You Shouldn’t Try to
Dominate a Negotiation
by Scott Wiltermuth
AUGUST 27, 2015
Should you act dominantly or deferentially when you negotiate? Negotiators generally believe that
dominance will give them an edge—and for good reason. Some past studies have shown that when
negotiators act dominantly by raising their voices, expanding their body postures to appear larger,
and moving themselves to physical positions associated with power they can often claim more of the
value available in a negotiation.
But not always. Colleagues and I have discovered that there are instances when negotiators should
act deferentially—they should maintain a constrictive body posture, adopt a softer tone of voice, and
take other steps to ensure their negotiation partner feels respected, competent and unthreatened. It
COPYRIGHT © 2015 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2
all comes down to the complexity of the deal and how the person across the table is behaving. In
negotiations with many moving parts, negotiators need to find a conversational dynamic that allows
them to exchange information effectively, to unravel the different areas of dispute, and to ensure
that all the nuances of a potential deal are fully explored. This is best achieved when two parties
attain what we call “dominance complementarity,” wherein one person in an interaction behaves
relatively deferentially and the other behaves relatively dominantly.
Why is this? Consider the options a negotiator has when she squares off against someone who acts
dominantly from the negotiation’s outset. The negotiator can match dominance with dominance. In
this case conflict often escalates, people focus on “winning” each issue, and negotiators become
more likely to reach impasses; mutually beneficial tradeoffs are rarely discovered. Alternatively, the
negotiator can display deference in response to dominance. In this case the dynamic becomes more
comfortable and the negotiators become better able to parse complex issues. In fact, we have noticed
that each side will take on a clear role. The dominant negotiator will asert preferences and the
deferential negotiator will ask questions to try to find solutions that satsify both parties.
But that does not mean that acting deferentially is always best. If one negotiator acts deferentially
from the outset, the other negotiator should actually assume a dominant style. Meeting deference
with deference may lead to collegiality; however, it does not reliably lead negotiators to discover the
tradeoffs that create “win-win” agreements. Without one negotiator asserting strong statements of
preferences or priorities and displaying a degree of inflexibility on these issues, compromises are too
quickly made and information that negotiators might have otherwise used to discover more efficient
agreements are never discussed.
In a set of two experiments, we had people participate in mock negotiations over either the merger of
two companies or over a job offer. Both scenarios involved multiple elements so as to simulate a
complex negotiation. We gave participants pay-off grids telling them how valuable each issue was to
them using a point system. We instructed some of the participants to act dominantly by using
expansive body posture and taking charge of the conversation. We instructed some of the
participants to act deferentially by using constrictive posture and making sure that the other person
felt respected. The control group received neither instructions to act dominantly nor instructions to
act submissively.
Across our studies, we found that pairs consisting of one negotiator behaving dominantly and the
other negotiator behaving deferentially reached better deals than did pairs consisting of two
dominant negotiators, pairs consisting of two deferential negotiators, or pairs in which neither
negotiator received behavioral instructions. We judged the success of the deal by calculating the
number of points negotiators accumulated from the payoff grid. They reached these superior deals
because they more successfully exchanged information about their preferences and the priorities
they placed on different issues. In short, they communicated more effectively – with the dominant
negotiators stating preferences and the deferential negotiator asking questions.
COPYRIGHT © 2015 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 3
It is important to note that while adopting a deferential interactional style with dominant
counterparts can help you in complex negotiations, you should not become truly submissive when
playing that role. The negotiators behaving deferentially in our study who performed well did not
sacrifice their own preferences or ignore their own desires. Instead, they used a more subtle, more
respectful conversational approach to satisfy those desires and achieve their goals.
Next time you are negotiating, ask yourself if improving the amount and quality of information
exchanged between you and your negotiation partner could improve the quality of the agreement
you reach. If so, resist the urge to decide your interaction style before meeting your negotiation
partner. Our research suggests that monitoring and tailoring your behavior based on one another’s
interaction styles may allow you to achieve higher-quality deals.
Scott Wiltermuth is an associate professor of management and organization at USC’s Marshall School of Business. He
researches how interpersonal dynamics, such as synchrony and dominance, affect people’s willingness and ability to
cooperate with others. He also researches how socio-environmental factors affect people’s likelihood of behaving
unethically.
COPYRIGHT © 2015 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 4
Copyright of Harvard Business Review Digital Articles is the property of Harvard Business
School Publication Corp. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Organizational Behavior: Discussion Grading Rubric

 
Technical Engagement Requirements
 
Extent to which student meets participation criteria that involves at least 1 original comment and at least 2 replies to learning community members in forums with an original comment being offered by the 1st comment deadline.
13 – 3 points
 
Meets ALL Participation Criteria
11 points
1st Comment Deadline Missed
7 points
Minimum Comment Amount Not Met
5 points
1st Comment Missed + Lacking Comments
3 points
1 original comment; at least 2 replies to learning community members. Original comment being offered by the 1st comment deadline. Student offers 1 original comment and at least 2 replies, however, the 1st comment deadline is missed. 1st comment deadline is met.
 
Minimum number of comments (1 original comment and 2 replies) is not met.
Student makes at least 1 comment, but doesn’t contribute the minimum number of comments.
 
1st comment deadline is missed.
Original Comment Quality
 
Extent to which:
1) contents of an original comment involves both accurate and deep level content.
2) synthesis of information is evident.
student considers more than one source of information – or – a combination of appropriate experiences, past knowledge and course content when developing original comment.
3) original comment specifically identifies source of knowledge base; or offers material that supports his/her position.
Outstanding
25 – 23 points
Very Good
22 -21 points
Good to Satisfactory
20 – 18 points
Needs Improvement
17 – 0 points
All criteria met.
 
Strong evidence that original comment was made after careful consideration of more complex concepts. Higher order thinking is applied when developing the comment.
 
Student’s knowledge is evident through original (not overly quoted) content. Original source of information is noted.
 
The facts/theories presented are accurate. Student considers multiple sources of information, not simply summarizing a concept from the textbook.
Most criteria met.
Evidence exists that original comment was made after consideration of more complex concepts.
 
Knowledge of topic is communicated primarily through one’s own words.
 
Information is accurate.
 
Student many or may not synthesize information; may or may not identify source(s) of knowledge for the comment.
 
 
An acceptable amount of criteria is met.
Some evidence exists that original comment was made after consideration of more complex concepts.
Information is accurate.
The contents of the comment support a more surface level understanding of the topic – than a deeper level of understanding.
More content summarized from text  – than content synthesized from multiple sources.
Student may or may not identify source(s) of knowledge for the comment.
If any of the following occur:
 
An inaccurate statement is made, in whole or part.
 
Mostly surface level reflection. OR – Not enough information shared to determine the level of understanding the complexities of the topic.
 
Mostly personal opinion offered in comments. Limited (to no) direct connection to course material – or material that a student brought into the course.
 
No identification of knowledge base from which comment is made.
 
 
Replies to Discussion Members
Considering both replies, extent to which:
1)      a student has focused on the more topically or academically significant content of any comment on which the student chooses to reply.
2)      replies are academically oriented; ideas are formed by reflecting on course content and/or material brought into the course along with past experiences or knowledge.
3)      replies in some way move the discussion forward.
4)      higher order thinking is applied.
 
Content must be factually accurate.
Best two replies to community members are graded.
Outstanding – Very Good
14 -13 points
Good to Satisfactory
12 – 11 points
Needs Improvement
10 – 8 points
One reply
7 – 0 points
All criteria met.
Replies are focused on the more topically or academically significant content of member ‘s comments
 
Replies are academically oriented; ideas are formed by reflecting on course content and/or material brought into the course along with past experiences or knowledge.
 
Replies move the discussion forward.
 
Higher order thinking is applied.
 
Content is factually accurate.
Most criteria met.
 
At least one reply is focused in the more topically or academically significant content of member comment.
 
To a satisfactory level, replies are academically oriented.
 
Replies move the discussion forward to some extent.
 
Higher order thinking is applied in most statements made in replies.
 
Content is factually accurate.
Improvement is needed in one or more of the following areas.
 
What student has chosen to focus upon in both comments reviewed.
Level of academic content within the replies.
 
Replies do little to move the discussion forward.
 
Higher order thinking is not evident in one or both replies.
 
A component of one or two of the replies is not factually accurate.
Maximum number of points a student can earn when only offering 1 reply is 7.
7 = excellent – to –  4 = needs improvement.
 

 
 
 

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

GET A 40% DISCOUNT ON YOU FIRST ORDER

ORDER NOW DISCOUNT CODE >>>> WELCOME40

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized