1
PHIL/PHIX1037 Final Assessment
Submission Details
Date: no later than Sunday 14th June 2020.
Where: Via the iLearn site for PHIL1037. Under the “Assessment” Tab you will find a
Final Assessment page link. On that page, you will find a Turnitin link. Submit there
and follow instructions.
Format: A single PDF with all the required elements in a single file is preferred.
However, a single Word file are also acceptable. Nothing else. 11pt or 12pt font. Use
headings for the three elements required of you.
References: If you reference things, add a bibliography. If you don’t, don’t. Preference
for Harvard, Author/Date referencing, but this is not a hard requirement. Just be
consistent. There is no “minimum/maximum” number of references.
Style/Layout: Use your own initiative. Is what you have done clear? Can your
audience/reader follow this without difficulty? Have you laid out your assessment in a
way that makes it clear how you are trying to meet the requirements of the
assignment? Good. You choose the layout, but think of your reader.
Warning:
*Whatever you upload is what will be marked. If your file is corrupted,
unreadable, a draft version, something for an entirely different course,
whatever, that is on you. Make sure you submit/upload a good quality, well
formatted, final version of the correct assessment. “I uploaded the wrong
one” is not an acceptable excuse. *
PLEASE, FOR LOVE OF WHICHEVER DIETY YOU WORSHIP, CHECK THIS.
DESPITE MY EXHORTATIONS FOR THE LAST ASSESSMENT A NONNEGLIGIBLE NUMBER OF PEOPLE STILL MANAGED TO MESS THIS UP AND
WE SAW EVERYTHING FROM BLANK-PAGES TO THE ASSESSMENT
INSTRUCTIONS UPLOADED. THE ONLY THIGS WE DIDN’T GET WERE LOVE
LETTERS, AND SHOPPING LISTS.
Continued on next page.
2
Assignment Task
Read and respond as instructed to the following:
1. Context Statement 2. Our Task 3. What You Need to Produce and Submit.
1. Context Statement
In the remote and rural NSW communities of the Gulp River basin, there are growing
tensions around the possibility of a new coal mining licence being granted to the Prospectus
Group – a large international minerals and mining company. The plan is commonly referred
to as the Prospectus Mining Project, or (PMP).
The expansion of coal mining is divisive and controversial, and so the NSW Government are
very aware of how carefully such a situation needs to be managed, especially in light of the
controversies surrounding the Queensland Adani mine licences from 2015-2018. The NSW
Government are keen to handle the PMP decision with a full sense of the issues involved, and
a complete picture of the interests and arguments of affected parties. To achieve this, they
have set up the PMP Inquiry Board to assess the science, the economics, and needs and
interests of the Gulp River communities. The board is headed by Professor Pooky Hook – a
public policy and communications expert.
The PMP Inquiry Board have created various sub-committees and tasked them with handling
each of the issues separately: the science, the economics, and public opinion and local
interest. The science and economic sub-committees will look at arguments and submissions
from the Mineral Council of Australia, Prospectus, CSIRO, and leading climate scientists
amongst others. The public opinion and local interest sub-committee will look at arguments
and submissions from local interest groups. With an informed account of these submissions
in hand, the Inquiry Board will make a decision on the PMP, and whether to allow massive
mining in the Gulp River Basin.
2. Our Task
We have been assigned to assist the Public Opinion and Local Interest Sub-Committee, and
you have been given the task of analysing two submissions – one from the Gulp River
Chamber of Commerce, and another from the influential local campaign group, the #No-ToPMP Action Group. These two groups have very different perspectives on the PMP decision,
and were invited to submit a one-page summary of their views to our sub-committee. We
want you to take on the analysis and reporting for these two submissions.
Continued on next page.
3
Resources: – You have been provided with a dossier of relevant material. It contains:
• A copy of the Gulp River Chamber of Commerce submission statement to the subcommittee.
• A copy of the #No-To-PMP Action Group submission statement to the sub-committee.
• A collection of possibly useful material gathered by one of our junior researchers,
Parker Pipe (Parker has provided some useful information here, however, it isn’t
exhaustive; do feel free to collect some of your own if you want to. Don’t go
overboard though.)
Parker’s resources include:
1. A Media release from the Mineral Council of Australia “Support for
Australia’s world-class minerals industry continues to rise”
à This is referred to in the Chamber of Commerce Submission
and is worth having a look at.
2. A newspaper article from The Guardian “Most Queensland voters
oppose taxpayer support for Adani coalmine”
à This seems to contain some details on a poll referred to by the
#No-To-PMP Action Group in their submission.
3. A research paper – Alanna Sincovich, Tess Gregory, Ashleigh Wilson
and Sally Brinkman (2018). “The social impacts of mining on local
communities in Australia”. Rural Society, 27:1, 18-34.
à We don’t expect you to give an analysis of the science here, but
it can be a useful background on some of the social aspects of
mining in local communities. It might be useful for your
“recommendation briefing”.
4. A research paper – Thomas Moritz, Thomas Ejdemo, Patrik Söderholm,
and Linda Wårell. (2017). “The local employment impacts of mining: an
econometric analysis of job multipliers in northern Sweden”. Mineral
Economics. 30:53–65.
à Again, we don’t expect you to cover or analyse the science, but
it gives an alternative perspective on economic benefits from
mining in a context outside of Australia. It might be useful for
your “recommendation briefing”.
Continued on next page.
4
3. What You Need to Produce and Submit.
1. A standardisation of the arguments used in the Gulp Rover Chamber of Commerce
submission, and the #No-To-PMP Action Group Submission
2. An 800-word analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the two arguments, as
you’ve standardised them. You should include:
a. Comment on the types of argument used (e.g. inductive, deductive, analogy,
causal claims), and their relative strengths.
b. Any problems in the arguments used (e.g. notable fallacies, unsupported or
poorly supported claims, judgements on whether any research they’ve
referred to is handled correctly and honestly etc.)
3. An 800-word analysis of the language, rhetoric, and possible biases used in the the
Gulp River Chamber of Commerce submission, and the #No-To-PMP Action Group
submission. This should reference the actual language of the submissions, not your
standardisations. You should include:
a. Comment on the tone and language (e.g. word choice, ambiguity, spin, jargon,
certainty and doubt, etc.)
b. Comment on possible biases in the arguments used (e.g. confirmation biases,
agreement biases etc.)
4. A 400-word “recommendation briefing” for the Head of Inquiry Board. How should
Professor Hook judge the two submissions? Which is the stronger case and why? She
will also need some suggestions for how to respond to the two groups in informing
them of her decisions. What should she be telling the two groups about why the final
decision agrees or disagrees with their preferred outcome?
Please remember, this is time sensitive, and it will be used to compile important public
responses. It needs to be clear enough for everyone on the Inquiry Boards and subcommittees to understand it, it needs to be accurate, and it needs to be in on time. Hope to
see a full report soon.
End of Document.
The post PHIL1037. Under the “Assessment’ appeared first on My Assignment Online.