DQ1. Complete the SWOT Matrix [DOCX] to highlight the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of
the company (as approved by the instructor) you described in the Week 1 discussion.
Your selected company may be a startup company of your choosing or it may be based on the snack food
company scenario provided to you.
Include four items in each category.
As you complete each quadrant of the SWOT Matrix, consider these questions:
What are your selected company’s likely strengths?
Is your product or service in a growing industry and does it lack an entrenched competitor?
Are you in a niche market with great potential?
What strengths do you and other team members bring to the company?
What are your chosen company’s likely weaknesses?
How entrenched is the competition in your industry segment?
Is your management team inexperienced?
How challenging will it be to produce the product or offer the service and maintain quality?
What are your company’s opportunities?
Does your segment have more demand than supply?
Have larger corporations stopped serving smaller or niche markets that you could enter?
Is a new market emerging because of demographics, immigration, changing tastes, et cetera?
What are your company’s threats?
Does a clear market leader exist that will be hard and expensive to displace?
Are downward-pricing pressures in the segment making profit margins slim?
Are there few or no barriers to entry for new competitors?
DQ2. In the discussion preparation, you were asked to use critical thinking and metacognition and analyze the
three basic categories of tort law: negligent torts, intentional torts, and strict liability. You were also asked to
identify the four elements necessary to show that the plaintiff presented a prima facie case of negligence. In
this discussion, present your analysis by using applicable legal precedents.
Recruitment took place at the beginning of a class period after permission had been granted by the instructor. The researcher then explained the goals of the study and distributed individual sign-up sheet to preserve the anonymity of the participants. Any student who wished to participate was welcome. The researcher hoped to recruit at least 15 participants in each section of the French phonetics course to meet the requirement for representativeness, but due to lack of enrollment, there were only 7 participants per group. The qualitative data from the participants provided rich enough data to obtain a credible picture and ensure saturation. Thus the requirements for the representativeness/saturation trade-off was met. Both groups received the same instruction in French phonetics and pronunciation. The phonetics course was held every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for fifty minutes. Fridays were dedicated to lab work, while Mondays and Wednesdays were lectures. At the University of Illinois, French pronunciation is taught following an explicit methodology. Each phonological feature is explained in detail according to the manner of pronunciation: tongue position, jaw position, lips, etc. Data Collection Before the first phonological feature was taught, the participants completed the pre-test (Time 1). The post-test (Time 2) was completed after the instruction of the features. Both pre-test and post-test included two types of reading/recording exercises: a short text and short sentences (created by the researcher), targeting specific phonological features of French: /y/ vs. /u/, or the “silent e” (or schwa). While reading the texts and sentences, each participant was required to record themselves at Time 1 and at Time 2. The recordings took place in the phonetics laboratory at the University of Illinois, where participants can be monitored. The researcher asked the students to record themselves only once to control for repeated recordings, which may allow the students to modify their pronunciation.>GET ANSWER