Read the following newspaper article and then provide a written critical analysis following the outline below: a. Identify the causal claim that is being addressed in the article and provide a drawing (i.e. a concept map) to represent the causal claim. Outline the question that this claim addresses, and describe why it is important. Then, write state the primary claim that the author is making and any secondary or related claims. (?5 marks) b. Provide a detailed analysis of the causal claim and discuss the techniques used by the authors to either support or refute the claim. In particular, you should: i. critically evaluate the evidence provided, and ii. consider possible rival causes for the relationship in question. (?15 marks) c. Identify and evaluate any underlying assumptions or values you believe the author holds. Be sure to describe why they are underlying, and why they are important to understanding the author's position. (?5 marks) d. Finally, discuss whether you believe the author's claim is valid. Use relevant concepts, themes, and material from this course along with your critical analysis provided above to defend your response. (?5 marks) Write the answer as a single essay response and provide indicators for the different sections in the column (i.e. a), b), c), d)). The approximate mark values for the various sections are indicated but your response will be assessed as a whole.

Part II: Written essay response [1 question worth 30 marks] Read the following newspaper article and then provide a written critical analysis following the outline below: a. Identify the causal claim that is being addressed in the article and provide a drawing (Le. a concept map) to represent the causal claim. Outline the question that this claim addresses, and describe why it is important. Then, in your own words, state the primary claim that the author is making and any secondary or related claims. (:5 marks) Provide a detailed analysis of the causal claim and diSCuss the techniques used by the authors to either support or refute the claim. In particular, you should: i. critically evaluate the evidence provided, and ii. consider possible rival causes for the relationship in question. (:15 marks) Identify and evaluate any underlying assumptions or values you believe the author holds. Be sure to describe why they are underlying, and why they are important to understanding the author's position. [:5 marks) Finally, discuss whether you believe the author's claim is valid. Use relevant concepts, themes, and material from this course along with your critical analysis provided above to defend your response. (=5 marks) Write your answer as a single essay response and provide indicators for the different sections in the column (Le. a}, b}, c}, d}). The approximate mark values for the various sections are indicated but your response will be assessed as a whole. Spelling counts. But for how much longer? {Adapted} Watson, William. Financial Post {Dnline}, Feb 21, 21123 Universal use of on algorithm to mechanically vet o resume for errors means writing will no longer be or signal of competence I know a fellow whose family name exists in a couple of possible spellings. When hiring for his business, he would discount applications that didn't spell it right. They had unked their first due diligence test. Spelling definitely counts, I told university students through 4t] years of teaching though the trend toward computergraded multiplechoice exams [now even in upper years, I'm sorry to say] has made that less and less true. But that's anecdotal evidence r'anecdata," as they say. Now three scholars at MIT's Sloan School of Management Emma van lnwegen, 2anele T. Munyikwa and John J. Horton have tested the importance of spelling and other aspects of writing ability in a sample of 43D,943 jobseekers who applied to an unnamed onllnejob service over 36 days in the summer of 221. That's real data and lots of it. The title of their pager gives their result: "Algorithmic writing assistance on jobseekers' resumes increases hires." Algorithms are all the rage these days and testing them even more so. This large-scale test shows that spelling definitely counts. So do good grammar and other signs of writing ability correct capitaliaation, absence of typos, correct use of words, punctuation, knowledge of "collocations" {which words commonly go together: i.e., lolo my homework rather than Imoke my homework}. But there's a catch, as we'll see in a minute. The three researchers conducted their experiment by splitting the sample in two. One half the control group used the search service as normal. The other half the "treatment group" got help with their applications from an undisclosed writing service. Like Gram marly or Hemingway Editor or any of more than a dozen such apps, their writing service checked applicants' submissions for spelling, grammar, style and other errors. Most applicants treated in this way evidently took the advice: their final applications had fewer errors than the control group though in every other testable way the two groups were indistinguishable. what was the result of having fewer errors? More hires and better pay. The group that had help from the writing algorithm was eight per cent more likely than the control group to be hired in the first month. Spelling really does count {those other things, too]. And their average pay was $13.62,.I'hr on average versus 512.1? though both groups asked for $2tifhr on average. The algorithm was also redistributive: it made the biggest improvements in the applications of the bottom 30 per cent, as measured by errors. It also helped people more who lived in non-English speaking countries. So how do we feel about the fact that getting help from a writing algorithm got people hired more often? Isn't that cheating? You're not a great writer (or speller) but you send in an application that suggests you are? It's not the worst crime imaginable. Besides, though most people take extra care with their appearance and hygiene when going to a job interview we don't think of that as cheating, do we? But they are presenting themselves in a way that's more favourable than their ordinary, everyday presentation. (Not that their potential employer doesn't understand that and take it into account.) The morality of it all depends on whether the "signalling effect" or the "clarity effect" dominates. The signalling effect is that you purge your application of errors to signal something about yourself - though are you signalling (falsely) that you're a good writer or (sincerely) that you're someone who takes extra care with your application? By contrast the "clarity effect" is that by purging your application of error you enable your resume to tell your personal story without distraction: you're better able to get a sense of yourself across to potential employers and that may lead to a better job match for both of you. How to tell which effect dominates? The MIT researchers had access to job satisfaction data that both employers and employees filed - privately - after their job contracts were over. If a clean resume is basically a signal and job applicants were sending a false signal because they'd had a machine correct their writing errors, you'd think that would lead to dissatisfaction on the employers' side: they weren't getting what candidates were selling themselves as. But it turns out - and this is the catch I referred to - employers were equally satisfied with the control and treatment groups: there was no difference between them. So spelling and grammar do count for getting the job. But not necessarily for performing the job - even though 17 per cent of applicants said writing was their primary area of work. Of course, this was an experiment in which only half of people got computer assistance with their writing. Half didn't. But how long before everyone applying for a job has their application mechanically vetted? "This kind of algorithmic writing assistance will likely 'ruin' writing as a signal," the researchers conclude, seemingly wistfully. "(Even if the "signalling view" was at one time true, technological changes are likely to make it not true in the future." Very sad, to my mind. Though I'd remove the quotation marks from around "ruin," wouldn't you? Source: Watson, William. "Spelling counts. But for how long?" Financial Post, Feb 21 2023, https://financialpost.com/opinion/spelling-counts-how-much-longer. About the author: William Watson taught at McGill from 1977 to 2017. He was Chair of Economics from 2005-10 and Acting Chair in 2016-17. He has written for the Financial Post since 1980. From 1998-2002he edited Policy Options politiques, the magazine of Montreal's Institute for Research on Public Policy, where he is currently a Senior Research Fellow. He is also a Research Fellow at the C. D. Howe Institute in Toronto and a Senior Fellow at Vancouver's Fraser Institute, where he blogs weekly. https://www.mcgill.ca/arts/article/big-news/exit-interview-professor-william-watson