BUSS 5020 University of Sydney Swinging Food Cafe Plant Based Alternative Argument Paper the instruction is in the file I provide below, please read the in

BUSS 5020 University of Sydney Swinging Food Cafe Plant Based Alternative Argument Paper the instruction is in the file I provide below, please read the instruction carefully. BUSS5020
Essay 1
S12020
Essay 1 task description
Background
Miranda Swinton, owner of Swinging Food café (a reference to Miranda former life as a trapeze artist),
in the inner west of Sydney, is staring at the menu that one of her chefs, Erica Batt, has proposed. She is
concerned that the menu is vegetarian, if not vegan, for all options. Maurice Griselle, who also is a chef
at Swinging Food, has also looked at the menu and has come storming into Miranda office.
Maurice: She can’t be serious, what about the meat eaters! This will cause all sorts of problems. We
might lose the cyclists and the other meat eaters. Our current menu has both options, vegetarian and
meat.
Miranda: Calm down Maurice, this is not set in stone and I will have a conversation with Erica. So, leave
it with me and it will be sorted out.
Miranda shook her head, and then went in search of Erica.
Miranda: Hi Erica, about the menu…
Erica: What do you think? I think it will be good for the customers, you know a lot of them are
vegetarian or vegan and this will work for them.
Miranda: I can see you are very excited about this. But, what about the meat eaters, they don’t get a
look in here…
Erica: Oh…come on, meat eaters are becoming extinct!
Miranda: Erica I think we need to get Maurice in here to discuss the options, as you both need to
prepare the same menu.
One day later, Erica and Maurice met up with Miranda.
Miranda: I am concerned about the potential problems with the menu, and I would like you to discuss
this to work out the best possible outcome.
Maurice: Well, I don’t think taking the menu vegetarian or vegan is going to help us.
Erica: Well, eating meat is going to destroy the environment. If you look at the BBC News, they state
that food production accounts for a quarter of gas emissions. This includes forestry as they have to cut
down trees to extend pastures for beef and lamb.
Maurice: Erica, you won’t get an argument from me on global warming, but we do need to think about
the meat in the food we prepare. Some people will stop coming to the café if there are no meat options.
We need to offer them meat.
Erica: Well, why not use the plant-based meat? If you look at the USA, the plant-based meat is growing
as people are moving away from eating meat.
1|Page
BUSS5020
Essay 1
S12020
Maurice: My understanding is that is very high in salt, so that’s no good, look at the ABC news or Choice
magazine. They are saying that it is very heavily laden in salt, sugar and fats. Besides they government
have asked us to support the farmers, and we should do that, by buying meat.
Erica: I don’t want to change my menu, but I will if you go with plant-based meat. Especially if you look
at the research that shows one-third of Australians are flexitarian or want to reduce the meat they eat.
My menu can do that.
Maurice: Erica, that is being unreasonable, meat eaters won’t go for this.
At this point the arguments started between Erica and Maurice, until Miranda stepped in.
Miranda: Alright, I will investigate both options and I will make a judgement.
Miranda is confused by the options and has decided to engage a consultant. She has two articles,
Deloitte – Plant-based alternatives and 8 Surprising Benefits of Meat
Task
Your task is to examine the documents put forward by Miranda Plant-based alternative and 8 Surprising
Benefits Of Meat and then write a short evaluation in essay format. The essay should evaluate the two
sides of the debate and then conclude with a clear and well-justified recommendation on whether
Miranda should switch her menu.
In the essay you must:
1. write a succinct introduction;
2. critically evaluate the two sides of the debate; and
3. conclude with a well-justified recommendation.
Critical thinking is a key component of the exercise and we are looking for originality of thought. In so
doing, you must draw on additional research from other reliable English language sources, especially
peer-reviewed academic journal articles and, if applicable, relevant industry, government and nongovernment publications.
By way of guidance, it is recommended that your essay should spend:
1. Roughly 80 words on introduction;
2. 450-600 words on critically evaluating the argument(s); and
3. 80-120 words on a conclusion.
4. Your essay must include a reference list.
This Essay task is worth 15% of your final grade, and should not exceed 1,000 words in length, including
in-text references, reference list, and any text in tables, diagrams, etc. Your essay must also contain a
reference list, which is also included in the word count. The essay must be submitted in .doc or .docx
format.
2|Page
BUSS5020
Essay 1
S12020
Your filename must take the format SID_BUSS5020_2020S1_Essay1.docx, where SID is your SID, e.g. A
student with the SID 012345678 would have the filename:
012345678_BUSS5020_2020S1_Essay1.docx
The essay must be properly referenced in accordance with the American Psychological Association (APA)
6th edition style. Details are available on the Library website. The essay must adhere to the University’s
Academic Honesty in Coursework Policy 2015, and other relevant University policies.
The Essay is due no later than 10:00AM on 20 April 2020.
The University has authorised and mandated the use of text-based similarity detecting software for all
text-based written assignments. The task must therefore be submitted through Turnitin on Canvas. You
may resubmit the essay until the due date/time, after which no further resubmissions will be accepted.
You are responsible for ensuring the correct document (not a draft) is submitted. The document submitted
at the deadline is the document that will be marked, and no discussion will be entered into to the contrary
nor any special pleading entertained.
Grading
Essays will be graded against the following criteria:
•
•
•
•
conforming with instructions;
critical analysis and evaluation;
research; and
presentation and communication.
Please see the rubric on Canvas for a more detailed explanation and additional resources. Standard
Business School penalties apply for papers submitted late and/or over the word limit. It is your
responsibility to ensure you are acquainted with these policies.
Late penalties
Assessments which are submitted after the assessment deadline will incur a late penalty of 5% per day or
part thereof up to 10 calendar days, after which a mark of zero is applied. The closing date is 10 calendar
days after the due date. Since submission is electronic, for the purpose of calculating penalties, weekends,
public holidays, and ordinary working days ALL count as days.
3|Page
BUSS5020
Essay 1
S12020
Word limit
A penalty is applied to papers which exceed the word limit. Where a student exceeds the word limit, the
student will lose 10% of the total marks when the submission is 10% above the word limit and 10% for
each 10% over-limit thereafter. Note that the word limit includes the executive summary, in-text
referencing, and the reference list at the end of the document. Any text in tables, images, etc. is also
included. Since the stated word limit for this assessment is 1,000 words, this means students can write up
to 1,099 words without incurring a word limit penalty.
Feedback
The final mark and written feedback will be made available to students via Canvas when available.
4|Page
BUSS5020 – Essay 1 Rubric 2020 Semester 1
Research
Depth, synthesis
and application
of relevant and
quality research.
20%
Depth of Critical
Analysis
Quality and
depth of the
analysis.
35%
Evaluation
Quality and
depth of the
evaluation.
20%
HD 100%
Extensive use and
synthesis of
relevant, quality
peer-reviewed
journal articles.
Additional high
quality and relevant
research is evident.
Source quality and
credibility has been
critically considered.
HD 90%
Very good use and
synthesis of
relevant, quality
peer-reviewed
journal articles.
Additional research
is generally of a high
quality and
relevance.
D 80%
Generally,
demonstrates good
use and synthesis of
quality peerreviewed articles.
CR 70%
Shows a good
understanding of
the role of research
and uses some
quality peerreviewed articles.
PASS 60%
Demonstrates
some depth and
application of
relevant, quality
research. Some use
of quality peerreviewed articles.
There is some room
for more relevant
selection and
application of
research.
PASS 50%
Demonstrates
some depth and
application of
relevant, quality
research. However,
in-depth use of
quality research is
lacking.
FAIL 40%
Over reliant in
places on the
material
provided.
Additional
supporting
evidence missed
where needed.
FAIL 20%
Relies mostly on
the material
provided, with
minimal
additional
research. When
used, any
additional
research is of
limited relevance.
Excellent critical
analysis displaying
comprehensive
evidence of
examining or
engagement with
information given
by the task.
Consistent, logical,
and showed
awareness of
hidden assumptions
or potential bias. No
improvement was
needed.
Very good critical
analysis
demonstrating very
good evidence of
examining or
engagement with
information given by
the task. Mostly
consistent, logical,
and showed
awareness of hidden
assumptions or
potential bias. But
there were minor
areas that could be
improved.
Good quality, indepth critical
evaluation showing
considerable depth
of insight into
multiple
perspectives on the
two sides of the
argument and
arrives at a
synthesised and
balanced overall
recommendation or
judgement. Minor
areas for
improvement.
Good critical
analysis
demonstrating
good evidence of
examining or
engagement with
information given
by the task. But
there were minor
areas where the
analysis was
inconsistent.
Reasonable critical
analysis
demonstrating
some evidence of
examining or
engagement with
information given
by the task. But
there were some
areas where the
analysis was
inconsistent.
Reasonable critical
analysis
demonstrating
some evidence of
examining or
engagement with
information given
by the task. But
there were too
many areas where
the analysis was
inconsistent.
Reasonable critical
analysis,
demonstrating
limited evidence of
examining or
engagement with
information given
by the task.
Limited critical
analysis,
demonstrating
very limited
evidence of
examining or
engagement with
information
given by the task.
Generally, limited
critical analysis,
showing little or
no evidence of
examining or
engagement with
information given
by the task.
Good evaluation
showing some
depth of insight into
multiple
perspectives on the
two sides of the
argument, and a
synthesised and
logical overall
recommendation or
judgement was
presented. Some
areas for
improvement.
Demonstrated a
reasonable
evaluation, where
two-sided
discussion was
critically engaged,
and a synthesised
and reasonable
overall
recommendation or
judgement was
presented. Some
areas for
improvement.
Generally
reasonable critical
evaluation. Twosided discussion
was presented, and
a basic synthesised
overall
recommendation
or judgement was
arrived at. Major
areas for
improvement
remain.
Demonstrated a
basic evaluation,
which included
multiple
perspectives.
However, the
overall
recommendation
or judgement was
weakly justified
and lacking in
quality.
Demonstrated a
very limited
evaluation, often
favouring a onesided discussion
or failing to
arrive at a
synthesised
overall argument
or judgement.
The level of
evaluation was
extremely limited.
The paper failed
to arrive at any
overall judgement
or addressing the
task question.
High quality, indepth critical
evaluation showing
outstanding depth
of insight into
multiple
perspectives on the
two sides of the
argument and
arrives at a
synthesised and
balanced overall
recommendation or
judgement. No
improvement was
needed.
FAIL 0%
Relies almost
entirely on the
material
provided, with
minimal
additional
research. When
used, additional
research is
consistently of
very limited
relevance and
quality.
Very limited in
critical analysis,
showing no
evidence of
examining or
engagement with
information
given by the task.
The evaluation
was lacking
throughout the
paper. No
conclusion was
presented.
BUSS5020 – Essay 1 Rubric 2020 Semester 1
HD 100%
Communication The work showed a
Quality and
near publishable use
clarity of
of business or
business or
academic writing
academic
style. Information
writing,
was presented in
presentation and flawlessly clear and
structure
organised manner.
HD 90%
Very good
presentation.
Information was
presented in a clear
and organised and
structured manner.
D 80%
Good presentation.
Information was
generally presented
in an organised and
structured manner.
CR 70%
The level of
communication
showed a good
understanding of
business or
academic writing
style. Information
was appropriately
categorised.
PASS 60%
The level of
communication
showed a
reasonable
understanding of
business or
academic writing
style.
PASS 50%
Although the
meaning was
generally
apparent, but with
regular errors in
spelling, sentence
or word choice.
Referencing was
very good, but some
minor issues in
adhering to APA 6th
edition.
Good referencing,
in adhering to APA
6th edition, but
there was one
mistake which
appeared
consistently
throughout the
text.
Reasonable
referencing, it
adhered to APA 6th
edition, but some
minor issues.
In-text and end of
text referencing
was present where
required, but with
minor errors. Did
mostly adhere to
APA 6th edition, but
considerable room
for improvement.
In-text or end of
text referencing
mostly present
where required
and stylistically
consistent. Did
mostly adhere to
APA 6th edition but
major room for
improvement.
20%
Referencing
Adherence to
APA 6th edition
referencing
style.
5%
Referencing was
consistently
accurate in content
and style, adhering
to the APA 6th
edition.
FAIL 40%
The level of
communication
was sometimes
appropriate for
an academic or
business context.
However, there
were sometimes
problems with
spelling and
grammar.
In-text
referencing or
quotation marks
missing for at
least one source;
or inaccurate/
missing content
for at least one
reference. Did
not adhere to
APA 6th edition.
FAIL 20%
The level of
communication
was not
appropriate for
an academic or
business writing.
There were
frequent errors in
spelling and
grammar.
FAIL 0%
The level of
communication
did not display
appropriate
business or
academic writing
skills. The work
caused
significant strain
on the reader.
Some in-text
references
missing, or some
quotation marks
missing. Some
references that
are occasionally
inaccurate in
content or some
items missing
from reference
list. Did not
adhere to APA 6th
edition.
Many in-text or
end of text
references were
missing; or
frequently in
accurate in
content; or no
reference list or
use of non-APA
6th edition style.
Word Count Penalty
Where a student exceeds the word limit length, the student will lose 10% of the total marks. However, when the submission is 10% above the word length, they will lose 10% of the total mark, but for each 10% over,
they will lose a further 10% of the total marks.
Late Penalty
Late submission penalty will be 5% per day after the due date for up to 10 calendar days, after which a mark of zero is applied. The closing date is 10 calendar days after the due date.
Appendix/Appendices
The word limit for the assessment is 1,000 words. Any appendices are included in the word count and will not be considered where these exceed the word limit.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment