Write a reaction paper on the assigned reading. Kamarck, Elaine C. 2018. Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know about how America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates. Third Edition.

Paper needs to be at least 5 pages, double spaced 12 point font

Instructions: Please create a case study based on the template attached and as good as the paper attached for the following patient. Please, please reword and use plenty of in text citations. Thank you.

A 53 year old African American man is in for follow up of his elevated blood pressure. He was seen last week in your office for a Department of Transportation commercial driver’s examination where his blood pressure was 176/92. Subjective questioning is negative. BP today is 174/94.

His physical exam is remarkable for a loud S2, sustained PMI at 5icslmcl, an S4 gallop is present. The remainder of his physical exam is unremarkable.

Family history is remarkable for high blood pressure.

Self describes his lifestyle as pretty sedentary due to driving long hours every day. Diet is often fast food with many cups of coffee.

• EKG – NSR with LVH by voltage
• CBC – normal
• CBP – normal except for glucose 154 (fasting). Fingerstick last week was 152
• A1C – 7.8

1.List 5 subjective questions it would be very important to know about this patient.

2.Explain the significance of the loud S2 finding.

3.What does the finding of his PMI indicate?

4.Explain the significance of the PMI in the normal location.

5.Explain the significance of the S4 finding.

6.Explain the finding of LVH given his current circumstances.

7.What additional diagnostics or testing (if any) you would like to order?

8.What are the top two diagnoses you are going to address at this time?

9.What is your pharmacologic plan for this man? Why did you choose the agent you did? Be sure to state your rationale and references.

10.Identify 5 lifestyle modifications to improve his health that he could implement in his current situation.

Instructions: Your first essay – the critical evaluation essay – is due at the end of week three. In this essay, you will be critically evaluating a speaker’s rhetorical skills.

Choose one TED Talk. Links to the TED Talks are on our Home Page. Decide whether the argument is successful or not. Has the speaker correctly used various methods of persuasion to convince you of his or her central claim? If you decide this speech is successful, discuss why. Evaluate the various types of support (ethos, pathos, and logos) as proof of the argument’s success. Make sure that your essay has an introduction that contains a hook and a thesis, body paragraphs that discuss one proof at a time (one paragraph per example), and a conclusion. If you decide that the speech is not successful, then discuss the fallacies that the argument makes. You are still required to have a strong introduction (hook and thesis), body paragraphs that discuss one fallacy at a time, and a conclusion. You may also discuss how the speech is successful with reservations. In this case, point to both the support and the fallacies you have found in the work.

Most of you will decide that your speaker has done a good job in composing his or her argument, so you will have three body paragraphs, one each evaluating how well the speaker used ethos (credibility), pathos, and logos to support the central message.

This paper should be at least 700 words, but no more than 850. The paper should be formatted correctly MLA style and written in third person (do not use the words I, me, us, we, or you). The essay should also contain citations and a works cited list based on your selected essay in the assigned readings. Formulate the structured response from your own close reading of the text. Include short quotes in each of the body paragraphs and cite them with the time stamp from the speech. Do not use outside sources (open Web) without explicit permission from the instructor.

Supplemental Readings, which include essays, articles, and historical speeches, can be accessed here and through the weekly lessons. Additionally, for the Week 2 and Week 3 forums, and the first essay, you will choose a TED talk to evaluate.

These are the instructions (it has to be 3-5 paragraphs and like 2 references in APA)

Discussion Board Question 5:

Part A) Explain what is meant by the “social construction of ethnic group reality”.

Part B) Compare and contrast explanations of ethnicity and ethnic relations given by these symbolic interactionist theorists: W.I. Thomas, G.H. Mead, Cooley, Park and Blumer.

Part C) Explain the following concepts: contact hypothesis, scapegoating theory and the normative approach. Watch the following video:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html

(NOTE: you may have to type the above address into your browser.)

How are the concepts discussed in Part B illustrated in this video?

In no less than two typed double-spaced pages with 1-inch margins and Times New Roman 12 point font pages answer one of the questions listed below.Please avoid long quotes or paraphrases as I am looking not just for your demonstration that you know the material but also (and more importantly) for your own opinion on the subject. Please clearly indicate on your paper which question you are answering.Submit your response to TurnItIn on Blackboard.Papers will be graded on grammar and style, length, the ability to correctly summarize the arguments in the works discussed, and the ability to synthesize a personal argument based on the works discussed. Outside sources other than the materials read for class are not allowed, nor are any collaborative efforts with other students.

• What is Cartesian Skepticism?What is the First Principle that Descartes derives from this type of skepticism?How does he reverse engineer the existence of God and the sensory world beginning with the First Principle?
• What do you think of Descartes’s four maxims of his method for examining his own beliefs and opinions?Do you think this is a process that everyone should undergo?Have you done something similar to this process in your own life?
• Select two of the following authors (Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) and compare and contrast their views about human nature.How do they agree/disagree with each other?Which explanation do you find more compelling?Why do you feel this way?In no less than two typed double-spaced pages with 1-inch margins and Times New Roman 12 point font pages answer one of the questions listed below. Please avoid long quotes or paraphrases as I am looking not just for your demonstration that you know the material but also (and more importantly) for your own opinion on the subject. Please clearly indicate on your paper which question you are answering. Submit your response to TurnItIn on Blackboard. Papers will be graded on grammar and style, length, the ability to correctly summarize the arguments in the works discussed, and the ability to synthesize a personal argument based on the works discussed. Outside sources other than the materials read for class are not allowed, nor are any collaborative efforts with other students.
  
  
  
  
  1. What is Cartesian Skepticism? What is the First Principle that Descartes derives from this type of skepticism? How does he reverse engineer the existence of God and the sensory world beginning with the First Principle?
  
  
  2. What do you think of Descartes’s four maxims of his method for examining his own beliefs and opinions? Do you think this is a process that everyone should undergo? Have you done something similar to this process in your own life?
  
  
  3. Select two of the following authors (Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) and compare and contrast their views about human nature. How do they agree/disagree with each other? Which explanation do you find more compelling? Why do you feel this way?