Bright Academic Experts

Author: admin

  • Create an instagram post for makeup brand as a social ad usi…

    Create a design for an instagram post for makeup brand as a social ad using PHOTOSHOP APP, the brand is makeup brand write a title, blusher stick mockup, and but some shadow, submit png and psd form // the main point is to do a post represnt the main core which is makeup

    Requirements: as mentioned

  • Marketing 350 research and analytics

    I need you to fill this out as of right now in the United States use Google Analytics

    Requirements: just do the following please but don’t make it Ai

  • Muddy Points Discussion

    After studying Module 5: Lecture Materials & Resources, submit one question for weeks 5.

    Read and watch the lecture resources & materials below early in the week to help you respond to the discussion questions and to complete your assignment

    watch

    • Diagnosing bipolar disorder. (2021). Khan Academy. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/mental-health/depression-and-related-disorders/v/diagnosing-bipolar-disorder
    • Treatments for Bipolar disorder. (2021). Khan Academy. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/mental-health/depression-and-related-disorders/v/treatments-for-bipolar-disorder
    • ADMSEP. (2020). eModule: Bipolar disorder (2020). Association of Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry. https://www.admsep.org/csi-emodules.php?c=bipolar&v=y
    • (Note: Complete the entire module/course)

    Read and watch the lecture resources & materials below early in the week to help you respond to the discussion questions and to complete your assignment(s

    Bipolar Case

    Case StudyJill, a 24 y/o Hispanic female arrives in the emergency room where her parents brought her for evaluation. They are worried because she is giving away all of her possessions and says she is planning to move to the South Pole so she can “save the world.” Her parents say that she has hardly been sleeping at all for the last 7 days, but she seems very energetic. They say she has appeared to be “in a frenzy” lately. When you interview Jill you notice that she speaks very rapidly and is laughing uncontrollably. It is hard to get her to be quiet long enough for you to ask questions. She seems agitated and has difficulty sitting still.

    Questions:Remember to answer these questions from your textbooks and clinical guidelines to create your evidence-based treatment plan. At all times, explain your answers.

    1. Summarize the clinical case including the significant subjective and objective data.
    2. Generate a primary and two differential diagnoses. Use the DSM5 to support the assessment. Include the DSM5 and ICD 10 codes.
    3. Discuss a pharmacological treatment would you prescribe? Use the clinical guidelines to support the rationale for this treatment.
    4. Discuss non-pharmacological treatment would you prescribe? Use the clinical guidelines to support the rationale for this treatment.
    5. Describe a health promotion intervention that would be appropriate for this patient.

  • questionnaire

    you are required to create a questionnaire that will be used in your research. Please be advised that you will not be required to go out and conduct the survey. However, you will need one for your research paper. It will not be counted in the final paper for the page count purpose, rather it will be at the end of your paper as an appendix. This should include at least 15 questions of which 3 to 5 should ask for demographic information, such as race, gender, education etc.

  • Literature Reviews

    You have now selected an ARP topic. (Topic attached) Option 2 ARP… law review article, you may continue to research in secondary sources but should limit your research to law review or other peer-reviewed journals, Restatements of Law, and minimal electronic media/Internet sources. No inclusion of legal encyclopedias, legal dictionaries, legal thesauruses is appropriate at this stage of the ARP, unless the definition is part of the legal dispute (e.g., dispute over defining a litigants role in the series of events that gave rise to litigation or where a court opinion may also cite to such a secondary source). You will complete an Evaluation Form for each primary authority/source(s)s of law and secondary sources, as listed below. Please type your answers. 2. Maximum Number of Points for this Assignment. You may receive up to 85 points for Literature Review No. 2. You will complete an Evaluation Form for each of the following: (equal 85 points) Primary Authority Source(s)/Law: Constitution/Statute/Regulation governing your legal issue. (Up to 10 points for each) Court Opinion/Decision on your legal issue from the governing jurisdiction, including from the highest court and any intermediate/appellate courts that have ruled on the issue/precedent) with accompanying Case Briefs. (Up to 25 points for each) Secondary Source(s) : Commentary on the legal issue you are interested in, in the form of: (1) a law review article or other peer-reviewed scientific journal (finance, psychology, etc.), minimum of 20 pages; (2) American Law Reports (ALR) annotation(s); (3) Restatements of Law; (4) treatises; or practice materials (i.e., jury instruction guide). (Up to 25 points for each) Electronic Media/Commentary: Substantive electronic media/Internet article(s), that address any primary authority governing your legal issue (i.e., a statute, or multipage case with a Courts decision). (Up to 5 points for each) Topic: Who Is the Parent Under IDEA? Educational Decision-Making Authority for Children in Foster Care This topic considers the legal issues of the educational decision-making rights of children in foster care under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA requires a legally established parent to be included in the process of making decisions related to the evaluations, eligibility, Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), and a placement. In the case of foster children, though, the role of the correct decision-maker is usually in doubt because of the presence of both the biological parents, foster parent, child welfare agencies, courts, and court-appointed guardians. The federal regulations allow the use of surrogate parents, but there is often a delay and inconsistent application. The effect of this ambiguity is often delayed appraisals, inadequate development of IEP and disruption of special education services. Consequently, there is a higher likelihood of foster youth with disabilities being deprived of their statutory entitlement to Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), especially at times when parents are in the process of litigation over their rights to child custody. The relevance of this problem is that the unequal treatment of foster youth compared to other jurisdictions is the result of differing interpretations of the definition of parent in IDEA. The rankings of the rights of the biological parents and the practical educational needs of the state-held children are different in courts and states.

  • Case study MRI

    I have a case study for an MRI of a brain tumor. The file contains all the required documents. I also need a PowerPoint presentation including MRI images of a normal brain and Word document, and a plagiarism report (0% plagiarism). Additionally, I need a rough image of the brain after surgical removal of the tumor (MRI image). dont use Ai

    Requirements: 0

  • Family Self-Reference Guide

    Choose one of the following topics that is relevant to at least one family at your school:

    • The evaluation process
    • The rights of parents and families under IDEA
    • Dispute resolution
    • Placement and least restrictive environment
    • Understanding IEPs
    • Transition planning

    Review federal, state, and district policies relevant to your chosen topic. You may want to speak with a special education coordinator or administrator to get the most accurate and up-to-date information on special education laws and policies. Then, develop a self-reference guide for you to refer to when conferencing with families that summarizes information on your chosen topic.

    Upload the guide as a PDF and annotate it according to the instructions in the requirements.

    Mark where the guide includes a definition of special education.

    Mark where the guide includes one example of services a student could receive under IDEA.

    Mark where the guide includes a succinct description of IDEA.

    Mark where the guide includes a succinct description of FAPE.

    Mark where the guide includes a succinct description of LRE.

    Mark where the guide includes explanations of at least two parental rights guaranteed under IDEA.

    Mark where the guide includes three resources that families can access if they would like additional information or support.

    Which topic did you select?

    Explain how this guide would support an educator as a reference when helping families understand key information about the selected topic, including IDEA, state laws and policies, and/or district laws and policies.

    I am a middle school teacher who teaches ese 6-8

  • Soap notes

    soap notes doesnt not have to be in APA format just include a title page and reference page

  • Application Paper

    Application Paper

    • Due Apr 5 by 11:59 pm Points 100 Submitting a file upload

    Assignment Overview:

    For this assignment, you will need to apply your knowledge of 3 criminological theories to a contemporary crime. [Please limit your selection to crimes that have taken place during the last 10 years. Please do NOT write your paper on Erik or Lyle Menendez, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ruby Franke, Alex Murdaugh, or Gabby Petito].

    Application papers should be 10 pages in length and should include the following:

    1. A brief description of the crime you have selected [~1 page]
    • What type of crime will you be examining?
    • What do we know about the circumstances surrounding the crime?
    • What do we know about the perpetrator?
    • What do we know about the target or victim?
    1. A detailed description of how each theory (or theorist) would explain the crime [2-3 pages per theory]
    • What does the theory/theorist suggest is the cause of crime? What additional factors (if any) does it consider? [Be sure to name & define the key concepts of each theory in your explanation. Never assume that we will know what you mean]
    • Which components of the theory are clearly evident in the case? [Note: This should be the focus of your paper. Please draw upon specific text, quotes, or illustrative scenes to demonstrate each point]
    • Which components of the theory (if any) are missing from the case?
    1. A comparison of the three theories [~2 pages]
    • Which theory does the best job at explaining the crime? [You MUST pick one – no ties here]
    • Which aspects of the crime or criminal does each theory do a good job of accounting for?
    • Which aspects of the crime or criminal does each theory fail to account for?
    1. In-text citations and a reference section (using APA or ASA style guidelines) for all sources used to complete this assignment [~1 page]

    Papers should use 12pt font and grammatically correct, complete sentences.

    Selecting the Theories:

    When selecting which theories to write about, you should choose from the following:

    • Cohen & Felson’s Routine Activities Theory
    • Durkheims Theory of Modernization & Anomie
    • Sampsons Theory of Collective Efficacy
    • Aker’s Differential Reinforcement Theory
    • Athens Theory of Violentization
    • Agnews General Strain Theory
    • Hirschis Social Control Theory
    • Gottfredson and Hirschis General Theory of Crime
    • Lemert’s Labeling Theory

    Please note: The theories you select do not all need to “fit” the crime. It is okay (perhaps even expected) that at least one theory will not work. What I will be looking for is whether you can explain why it does not fit.

    Rubric

    Application Paper (2026)

    Application Paper (2026)

    CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

    Description of the Crime

    5 to >4.0 pts

    Excellent (A)

    The paper clearly identifies all relevant details requested in the assignment prompt.

    4 to >3.0 pts

    Good (B)/Developing (C)

    The paper provides some requested details but is missing others. The description of the crime is rambling/unclear or too short/vague.

    3 to >1.0 pts

    Poor (D)

    The paper is missing most relevant details and/or fails to adhere to the requirements put forth in the assignment prompt.

    1 to >0 pts

    No Marks (F)

    The paper is missing an explanation of the crime.

    5 pts

    This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

    Application of Theory #1

    20 to >18.0 pts

    Excellent (A)

    The paper provides a clear, in-depth description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers specific, concrete evidence from the artifact to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime, and it acknowledges whether there are any elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

    18 to >14.0 pts

    Good (B)/Developing (C)

    The paper provides a simplistic and/or underdeveloped description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Some points were supported with relevant facts/examples while others lacked any support. And, it only partially acknowledges the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

    14 to >11.0 pts

    Poor (D)

    The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence (if any) to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Major points were not supported with relevant facts/examples. And, the paper clearly fails to acknowledge the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

    11 to >0 pts

    Unacceptable (F)

    The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers no evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime and/or the application is inaccurate or inappropriate.

    20 pts

    This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

    Application of Theory #2

    20 to >18.0 pts

    Excellent (A)

    The paper provides a clear, in-depth description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers specific, concrete evidence from the artifact to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime, and it acknowledges whether there are any elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

    18 to >14.0 pts

    Good (B)/Developing (C)

    The paper provides a simplistic and/or underdeveloped description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Some points were supported with relevant facts/examples while others lacked any support. And, it only partially acknowledges the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

    14 to >11.0 pts

    Poor (D)

    The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence (if any) to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Major points were not supported with relevant facts/examples. And, the paper clearly fails to acknowledge the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

    11 to >0 pts

    Unacceptable (F)

    The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers no evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime and/or the application is inaccurate or inappropriate.

    20 pts

    This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

    Application of Theory #3

    20 to >18.0 pts

    Excellent (A)

    The paper provides a clear, in-depth description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers specific, concrete evidence from the artifact to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime, and it acknowledges whether there are any elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

    18 to >14.0 pts

    Good (B)/Developing (C)

    The paper provides a simplistic and/or underdeveloped description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Some points were supported with relevant facts/examples while others lacked any support. And, it only partially acknowledges the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

    14 to >11.0 pts

    Poor (D)

    The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence (if any) to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Major points were not supported with relevant facts/examples. And, the paper clearly fails to acknowledge the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

    11 to >0 pts

    Unacceptable (F)

    The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers no evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime and/or the application is inaccurate or inappropriate.

    20 pts

    This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

    Discussion of Strengths & Weaknesses

    20 to >18.0 pts

    Excellent (A)

    The paper clearly indicates which of the three theories the author believes provides the best explanation of the crime. And, the author’s position is justified by demonstrating how the strengths and weaknesses of said theory outweigh the strengths and weaknesses of the other two theories.

    18 to >14.0 pts

    Good (B)/Developing (C)

    The paper indicates which of the three theories the author believes provides the best explanation of the crime, and the author’s position is (for the most part) justified by demonstrating how the strengths and weaknesses of said theory outweigh the strengths and weaknesses of the other two theories. Some points may be weak or unclear.

    14 to >11.0 pts

    Poor (D)

    The paper fails to indicate which of the three theories the author believes provides the best explanation of the crime, and/or the author’s justification is weak or incomplete.

    11 to >0 pts

    Unacceptable (F)

    The paper fails to indicate which of the three theories the author believes provides the best explanation of the crime, and/or the author’s justification is lacking in that it fails to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of all three theories (if any).

    20 pts

    This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

    References/Citations

    10 to >8.0 pts

    Excellent (A)

    Paper includes 3+ academic, peer-reviewed references. All sources are reputable and cited using correct formatting (i.e., using APA or ASA citation guidelines)

    8 to >7.0 pts

    Good (B)/Developing (C)

    Paper only includes 1-2 academic, peer-reviewed references, and/or citations are incorrect or incomplete.

    7 to >5.0 pts

    Poor (D)

    Paper includes no academic, peer-reviewed references. Other sources are unreliable or missing or improperly referenced.

    5 to >0 pts

    Unacceptable (F)

    Paper includes no references OR references are unreliable, missing, or improperly referenced.

    10 pts

    This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

    Execution/Quality of Writing

    5 to >4.0 pts

    Excellent (A)

    The paper is well-organized, and all statements and responses are appropriate in language, well structured, and grammatically correct. The paper clearly adheres to all guidelines outlined in the assignment prompt.

    4 to >3.0 pts

    Good (B)/Developing (C)

    The paper is somewhat organized, and most statements are well structured and grammatically correct. However, there are some spelling/grammatical errors throughout the paper. The paper adheres to most of the guidelines outlined in the assignment prompt, but it could use additional editing/tightening.

    3 to >1.0 pts

    Poor (D)

    The paper is poorly organized, and there are numerous spelling/grammatical errors. The author’s writing is confusing/hard to follow, and the paper fails to adhere to the guidelines outlined in the assignment prompt.

    1 to >0 pts

    Unacceptable (F)

    The paper was written in part or in full by another person or with generative AI.

    5 pts

    Total Points: 100

  • discussion. 450

    This brief talks about how hotels are coping with Covid-19 with changes in guest room protocols. Please read the articles carefully to answer the following questions.

    1. What are some ways the hotel rooms are changing?
    2. The author talks about “less is more” what the author is talking about here.
    3. How will these changes affect the guest experience?

    Please answer all three questions in three different paragraphs in your initial post. Each paragraph must have at least one in-text citation and 5 to 8 sentences.