he discussion allows you to refine your introduction paragraph. This should include your thesis statement. The thesis statement is usually the last sentence of the paragraph. Regardless of where it is in your introduction paragraph, you must identify your thesis statement. Either underline it or write it in bold font. Then, in the same response, complete the included chart for each source. Since you already had to find five sources last week, you should have no problem doing this.

The assignment this week builds upon last week’s assignment. In fact, you will include last week’s assignment, but you will highlight those parts to identify them.

The assignment requires you to have 7 primary sources and 3 secondary sources. Once again, last week you already found 3 primary sources and 2 secondary sources. Therefore, you only need to find 4 additional primary sources and 1 additional secondary source, but you must include all 10 sources in this assignment.  You will have a total of 7 primary sources and 3 secondary sources, plus you will write at least one paragraph of literature review for each source and include a references page for all sources.

Your assignment should follow this format:

  • Title page
  • Introduction paragraph with thesis statement in bold or underlined font.
  • 1st (new) primary source
  • Paragraph summarizing the source
  • Paragraph evaluating the source using CRAAP
  • 2nd (new) primary source
  • Paragraph summarizing the source
  • Paragraph evaluating the source using CRAAP
  • 3rd (new) primary source
  • Paragraph summarizing the source
  • Paragraph evaluating the source using CRAAP
  • 4th (new) primary source
  • Paragraph summarizing the source
  • Paragraph evaluating the source using CRAAP
  • 5th primary source (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • Paragraph summarizing the source (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • Paragraph evaluating the source Using CRAAP (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • 6th primary source (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • Paragraph summarizing the source (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • Paragraph evaluating the source Using CRAAP (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • 7th primary source (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • Paragraph summarizing the source (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • Paragraph evaluating the source Using CRAAP (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • 1st (new) secondary source
  • Paragraph summarizing the source
  • Paragraph evaluating the source using CRAAP
  • 2nd secondary source (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • Paragraph summarizing the source (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • Paragraph evaluating the source Using CRAAP (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • 3rd secondary source (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • Paragraph summarizing the source (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • Paragraph evaluating the source Using CRAAP (highlighted to indicate it is from last week)
  • References page (all 10 sources, alphabetized, double spaced, hanging indents)

he discussion allows you to refine your introduction paragraph. This should include your thesis statement. The thesis statement is usually the last sentence of the paragraph. Regardless of where it is
Discussion Student’s Name Institution Due Date Discussion Title: How the U.S. Pandemic Response Went Wrong—and What Went Right—during a Year of COVID URL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-u-s-pandemic-response-went-wrong-and-what-went-right-during-a-year-of-covid/ Currency-It is the part of the analysis that checks if the timeliness of the article is achieved or if better innovation and evidence regarding a topic have been achieved. The article is timely as many scientists are looking for hindsight evaluations of what went wrong during the Covid-19 response to ensure they can create models and provide analysis to the government for future decision-makers. There is little literature that can be referenced on the topic making it a unique piece (Liu, 2021; Lewis, 2021). Many scholars believe the world is yet to be out of danger despite the application of the vaccine. Therefore, the article offers an alternative though for those that believe it is time for planning and analysis. Relevance-The article discusses how the most developed and powerful countries responded to the Covid-19 and offer a comparison with other countries to save lives and ensure economic factors associated with the pandemic are identified for decision making. It was written as a reference point for the first year of the pandemic. It is relevant to a health professional looking to understand the difference between past SARS infections and why the old and those with underlying conditions seem to be the most vulnerable (Liu, 2021; Lewis, 2021). It is relevant to an economic expert looking to understand the economic costs that the United States might pay. Although the article offers estimations, they make decision making more effective. Authority- The article was written under the supervision of the Scientific American community, which collaborates with professionals from the health industry t understand trends and patterns in the world of health. Therefore, it is an authority that has influence and whose views are highly regarded by the community, who are the main audience for the article. The author Tanya Lewis is a senior writer at Scientific American and utilizes her expertise in health and medicine to inform communities on current issues and trends in medicine, among others. The authority is evident when the writer references Center for Disease Control investigations and research that pointed to the gaps that made it difficult for the government to react to the pandemic. Accuracy-The article references interviews and surveys done in collaboration with health care specialists and scientists to ensure all information is accurate. All the hypotheses and assumptions associated with the article are consistent with the findings by scientists (Liu, 2021). Therefore, the integrity of the information presented is preserved. Lingering questions on the challenges the country faced when responding to the Covid-19 pandemic are presented without any bias to ensure ethical journalism is achieved. The article identifies some of the errors that might have occurred at the beginning of the pandemic might have developed as the authorities sidelined experts in the decision making processes involving experts. Purpose- The article was written as a point of reference for decision-makers to help them understand the importance of a collaborative approach when dealing with a pandemic that humanity has not faced before in recent history. The first year of the pandemic might have offered key lessons that would help deter the further spread of the disease. Some of the challenges identified include slow and flawed testing of covid-19 that made the spread easier and inadequate tracing and quarantine for patients (Lewis, 2021). The article’s main purpose is to also pinpoint successes in fighting the virus, such as heroic performance by health workers and timely vaccine development. The article identifies misinformation as a threat that future pandemics will have to fight to ensure they meet their objectives. References Lewis, T. (2021). How the U.S. Pandemic Response Went Wrong—and What Went Right—during a Year of COVID. Retrieved on 25th May 2022from, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-u-s-pandemic-response-went-wrong-and-what-went-right-during-a-year-of-covid/ Liu, G. (2021). Moving up the ladder of source assessment: Expanding the CRAAP test with critical thinking and metacognition. College & Research Libraries News, 82(2), 75.