Directions This may be done table format. APA format is requ.docx

Directions: This may be done table format. APA format is
required whichever format you choose. A title page, running
head, page numbers and three references are required.
A. Identify the normal values for each of the following labs.
Consider normal values across gender, race, and age, and
pregnancy status, when applicable.
B. Identify clinical indications for obtaining the following labs.
1. List when indicated for routine screens if applicable (for
example,the USPSTF recommends screening for chlamydia in
sexually active women age 24 years and younger and in older
women who are at increased risk for infection, or TSH
screening is indicated for newborns. Indications for screening
can also include risk factors. For example, ordering cholesterol
levels on a patient with HTN or DM.
2. Besides screening,list 1-3 clinical indications for ordering the
lab. For example, clinical indications of WBC include
Fever with associated symptoms, weight loss, bone pain with
fever, etc.
C. Identify conditions associated with abnormal LOW levels of
each of the following labs (if applicable)
D. Identify conditions associated with abnormal HIGH levels of
each of the following labs (if applicable)
One good resources for screening recommendations is:
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/BrowseRec/Inde

x/browse-recommendations
1. Components on a Comprehensive Metabolic Panel such as
(but not limited to) sodium, chloride, potassium, glucose, CO2,
Magnesium, Phosphorus, Calcium
2. Renal Function Tests: Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN),
Creatinine, BUN/Cr Ratio, Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR)
3. Thyroid Function Tests
TSH, Free T4
4. Toxicology
Salicylate toxicity, Acetaminophen, Urine Drug Screen, Blood
Alcohol, Carbon Monoxide (CO)
5. For your last category of test. Report screening indications
for the chosen test, and some clinical indications for ordering
them, normal values/results, and S/Sx associated with high/low
or abnormal values when applicable
a. Mammography
On Writing an Ethical Argument Evaluation Paper (PHIL 302)
Topic is Racism between social Classes
Before you begin writing, it is crucial to pick a subject, topic,
or a specific argument that interests you. Your paper will be a
critical evaluation of the soundness of an argument. If you
already have an argument, then you can go on to the next step.

If not, you may choose to discuss one from an author you have
read, or you may formulate your own. In some courses, you may
consider a case study for your paper. In that case you will
formulate an argument that purports to defend a resolution to
the case. You should note that it is not crucial that you pick an
argument with which you agree. It is about equally difficult (or
easy) to write a paper opposing an argument as it is to write one
supporting it, so you should probably choose an argument that
is interesting first.
Your paper will have seven parts:
I. Introduction
II. Position
III. Argument
IV. Justification
A. Validity
B. Definitions
C. Explanation and defense of premise one
D. Explanation and defense of premise two
V. Objections

A. Objection (explained and defended) to premise one
B. Objection (explained and defended) to premise two
VI. Answers to objections
A. Answer/rebuttal to objection to premise one (explain/defend)
B. Answer/rebuttal to objection to premise two (explain/defend)
VII. Conclusion
NOTE: PLEASE CLEARLY LABEL EACH SECTION OF
YOUR PAPER USING THE MAIN HEADINGS LISTED HERE
– see the Sample Papers
Introduction
For your introduction, describe and explain the problem that
gives rise to the argument you are discussing. DO NOT explain
the argument, summarize the argument, or repeat the argument.
Explain what the problem is that you are trying to solve (or that
the person whose argument you are discussing is trying to
solve). Discuss why this particular subject is a problem, give a
little history to set up the problem, etc. This section is usually
two or three paragraphs.
Position
At the end of your introduction, it is natural to point out that
there is a position that you (or someone else) takes on the
problem. Your paper is a critical evaluation of the argument that
someone (you or someone else) gives in support of his or her
position on this problem. For example, if you are going to
discuss your argument against the teaching of values in our
schools, you would assert here that you are against it. On the

other hand, if you are going to discuss William Bennett's
argument in favor of such teaching, you would point out here
that he is in favor of it. The point here is that your paper is
about an argument that supports some position on the problem
you have outlined in the introduction. State that position here.
You should note two important things: the position stated here
should be exactly the conclusion of the argument in the next
section, and this is not the place to express your opinion. You
may, in fact, disagree with the position defended by the
argument that your paper is about, and it is fine to point that out
here, but do so in one sentence only. For example, you might
say: "Bennett's position on this subject is that values should be
taught in schools. I am, however, opposed." This part of the
paper is normally one or two sentences long.
Argument
Immediately following the position statement you should
present the argument that supports the position (either yours or
someone else's). It should be presented with numbered premises
and a conclusion that is also numbered. There should be a
horizontal line separating the premises from the conclusion. For
example:
(1) If the teaching of values in schools will revive America's
flagging morality, then values should be taught in schools.
(2) The teaching of values in schools will revive America's
flagging morality.
(3) Therefore values should be taught in schools.
JustificationS
This is one of the three most important sections of your paper.
It is also slightly more complicated than the rest. First, you
should defend the validity of your argument. If your argument is

an immediately recognizable form, you may say simply, "This
argument is valid because it is in proper modus ponens (or
modus tollens) form." If it is valid, but does not follow any
recognizable form, then you must explain briefly why the
conclusion follows from the premises. Do not explain modus
ponens or modus tollens.
Next, carefully define all of the terms that are of any
significance in your argument. Although you should feel free to
start with a dictionary, be careful to define the terms as the
person who gives the argument seems to mean them. Keep in
mind that "terms" can mean phrases as well as individual words.
For example, in the argument above you may want to define
"revive America's flagging morality".
The most important part of this section is the justification of the
premises. Remember that you are trying to accomplish two
things in this part. First, for each premise, you are trying to
explain what, exactly, the premise means. Secondly, you are
trying to show why an intelligent, thoughtful, well-meaning
person might believe each premise to be true. To do the first,
you will need to apply your definitions to the individual
premises and carefully explain the author's intent. To do the
second, you will need to provide evidence, examples, and/or
further argumentation. Do not imagine that simply repeating the
premise using other terms or other words does anything to
demonstrate its truth. Provide good reasons why someone
should believe each premise. You may want to note that
conditional premises generally require different sorts of reasons
in their support than declarative sentences do.
Be SURE to justify each premise separately. Use headings
(Justification of Premise 1, Justification of Premise 2) and make
it clear in the text what you are doing in that section (“here is
the justification of premise one). This will help the reader, and
it will help keep you “on track” with what you are supposed to
be doing.

It is crucial in this section to do the best possible job defending
the argument. If you agree with the argument that almost goes
without saying. But even if you disagree with the argument, this
section is where you do full justice to the "other side's" point of
view. If you do a poor job justifying the argument, you will not
earn the right to disagree with it, because you will have set up a
"straw person" that is easy to knock over. If you provide solid,
well-reasoned justification for your opponent's argument and
then demonstrate the errors of his or her reasoning, you will be
able to pronounce the argument unsound for good reason. That
is, after all, the point. It will not be enough to point out loudly,
or with lots of words that all say the same thing, that you (or
your opponent) are right or wrong. What matters is whether you
can provide solid reasons, convincing evidence, and clear
argumentation for your view.
The justification of a two premise argument will take at least
four lengthy, thoughtful paragraphs (two for each premise).
Check carefully to see that your justifications actually defend,
and do not only explain, your premises.
Objections
In this section you will raise, explain and defend at least one
objection to each premise (you should not object to the
conclusion - showing one of the premises false shows that the
argument does not prove the conclusion). Again, you must do
this even if you completely agree with the argument. Life is
such that almost no matter what your argument says, an
intelligent, well-meaning opponent can raise good objections.
Your conclusion will be much stronger if you consider those
objections (you will answer them in Part VI). In any case, raise
at least one good objection to each premise. Be sure to explain
and defend your objections with the same thoroughness you
used to justify the premises (that means a couple of thorough,
clear, thoughtful paragraphs each). Be careful here: "being

objectionable" is not the same as "objecting" to a premise. The
point of an objection is to show that a particular premise is
false. That is what your objections should say; then you must
provide good reasons, evidence, and reasoning to back them up.
Warning: do not object to the conclusion (and be careful when
you are objecting to a conditional premise - the premise is not
necessarily false if the consequent is false). That's "table-
pounding", which doesn't cut it in this course.
Be SURE to object to each premise separately. Use headings
(Objection to Premise 1, Objection to Premise 2) and make it
clear in the text what you are doing in that section (“here is the
objection to premise one”; “here is an objection to Premise 2”).
This will help the reader, and it will help keep you “on track”
with what you are supposed to be doing.
Answers to Objections
In this section you will provide answers to each objection. Be
careful here to show that the objections are false: DO NOT
simply restate or reiterate your justifications. Again, you must
explain why each objection is false, and then provide reasoning
and evidence to back up your claims. This is required, again,
whether you agree with the argument or not (do not imagine, for
example, that William Bennett will simply throw up his hands at
your objections to his argument and say, "Good Gosh! You're
right! How could I have missed that crucial point?" Nice
fantasy, but a bit unlikely). It is important here to try, as best
you can, to make your answers consistent with (or at least
compatible with) your justifications. If, for example, you have
given a utilitarian argument to justify euthanasia, it will not
make a lot of sense to provide a Kantian answer to an objection.
Answers, like justifications and objections, will normally take
at least two paragraphs each.
Be SURE to answer (or rebut) each objection separately. Use
headings (Answer to Objection to Premise 1, Answer to
Objection to Premise 2) and make it clear in the text what you
are doing in that section (“here is the answer (or rebuttal) to the

objection to premise one”, etc.) This will help the reader, and it
will help keep you “on track” with what you are supposed to be
doing.
Conclusion
If you agree with the argument, your conclusion will simply be
a summary of your paper to this point, along with any additional
thoughts or comments you may have. It is not a good idea to add
further justification or evidence at this point - put it in the body
of the paper. If you disagree with the argument, you may add a
few sentences here to show why the answers to your objections
are incorrect, false, or wrong - these need not be paragraph
length. But you will want to have the final word, and here's
your chance. Some people also like to add final comments here
(some folks, for example, like to tell me how their thinking on
the subject has grown and changed throughout the process of
writing the paper). A paragraph or two is all that is needed
here.
SOME NOTES
Be sure to write your paper for a broader audience than your
philosophy professor. Assume that your reader is intelligent,
witty, and well read. DO NOT assume that "he will know what I
am talking about - he teaches this stuff". I will grade you, in
part, on how well your explanation of your subject and
argument demonstrates your clear thinking about and
understanding of the subject.
Some do's and don'ts about the papers:
DODON'T
type your paper

cover pages
double-spaced
covers
notes [Author, p. 52], in text or footnote
right justification
reasonable margins (1 inch? maximum)
huge margins (top, bottom, or sides)
explain quotations
lengthy quotations
reasonable font and print size
large fonts, etc.
PROOFREAD your paper for grammar
imagine that one line on a page counts as a full page

PROOFREAD for spelling
triple-space or single-space
PROOFREAD for general sense
staple paper in upper left corner (not
needed electronically!)
On Writing an Ethics Paper 4
November 4th, 1999
The Battle of Deaths
Terminal illnesses can be some of the more painful medical
conditions a person can contract. In an effort to prematurely
end the pain and suffering of a person, the option of euthanasia
can be presented. Within euthanasia there exists many
classifications ranging from withdrawal of treatment to the
ingestion of lethal substances. The problem stated is: Is
euthanasia justified for a person with a painful, terminally ill
illness? The thought of anyone associating euthanasia with a
medical environment is enough to start some of the world’s
largest controversies in moral, ethical and medical worlds alike.
Euthanasia, as stated by the American Medical Association, or
AMA, is “the intentional termination of the life of one human
being by another.” (Rachels 593) The means of carrying out

this ultimate end can be vastly different in nature and effect,
and herein lies the controversy. Active euthanasia is the
process of giving a lethal dose of a drug or using any other
means to quickly terminate life, while passive euthanasia is just
the cessation of treatment and letting natural causes kill. The
argument lies in the justifications and ramifications for each
option, as well as no euthanasia.
Position: Rachels’ argument is that doctors should use active
euthanasia in situations wherever euthanasia is justified or used,
such as a person with a terminal illness. I have expanded this
argument to include a utilitarian perspective that includes the
highest utility for all alternatives, although I may not
necessarily agree with its conclusion.
Argument: The expanded argument being discussed is written as
follows:
1) If, in cases of a person with a severely ill, helpless, and
painful illness with no foreseeable cure, Active Euthanasia
provides a higher utility than any available alternative, then in
this case we ought to allow Active Euthanasia.
2) In cases of a person with a severely ill, helpless, and painful
illness with no foreseeable cure, Active Euthanasia provides a
higher utility than any available alternative.
Validity and Definitions:
The above argument is valid one because it is presented in
proper modusponens form. To ease understanding of the
argument, many of the terms and phrases need to be explained
to show the greater meaning or extra information beyond a
dictionary definition. For this argument a “severely ill, helpless
and painful illness with no foreseeable cure” is defined as a
terminal illness, nearing its end that causes great suffering for
the person under examination with no aid available within the

expected lifetime of the stated person. The AMA definition for
euthanasia was given earlier as “the intentional termination of
the life of one human being by another.” (Rachels, 593) This
can be expanded to include the means of termination to produce
the two terms active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia
is the termination of life with a process that would kill even a
healthy person such as taking an excess of certain drugs, lethal
injection, and poisons. Passive euthanasia is simply removing
further treatment for a patient and letting the disease/illness kill
him or her. When I speak of highest utility, I am referring to
the theory of utilitarianism or the most pleasure or least pain
situation, in this case since any alternative yields pain, be it in
differing levels, the objective is to make the pain as small as
possible. Utilitarianism, analyzing pleasure minus pain, uses
this calculation for all alternate scenarios to choose the correct
course of action. This is what is meant by “any available
alternatives”. Finally “in this case” refers to any medical
situation that fits the first definition of a severely ill, helpless,
and painful illness.
Justification of Premise 1:
This argument was constructed using utilitarianism because the
basis of utilitarianism is pleasure and pain instead of rights, or
autonomous and free will. The ultimate goal with a terminal
illness is to reverse or cure it, however since we do not have
this option, the reduction of suffering is the goal that we are
trying to seek. If we assume that active euthanasia provides the
highest utility of any available alternatives then it is morally
required to permit the action that allows the highest utility to be
reached. In this case that action is active euthanasia and the
highest utility is to end suffering by premature termination of
life. The first premise is a conditional sentence, so as a result
the object is not to prove the truth of active euthanasia
providing the highest utility, but to show that any action that
yields the highest utility of all situations, ought to be allowed

by society.
Utilitarianism provides the best basis for a moral discussion of
the subject of euthanasia, unless performed out of the wishes of
a corrupt individual, because there is little question of the
motive for cases of euthanasia since the goal is to end suffering.
The best option must be done or else yield to a lower utility and
therefor less happiness. The relationship between utility and
action is already defined by utilitarianism and can not be
separated without changing the entire philosophy.
Nevertheless, besides only the theory of utilitarianism, society
ought to pursue any alternative the will result in the most utility
or happiness because that is what the sum of the interests of all
people are. If society were to take a different course of action
from that which yields the highest total utility, people would be
less happy or have greater pain. The nature of sentient and non-
sentient beings alike is to avoid pain and pursue pleasure, so to
purposely turn away from the greatest pleasure is to go against
instinct.
Justification of Premise 2:
The second premise, which states “In cases of a person with a
severely ill, helpless, and painful illness with no foreseeable
cure, Active Euthanasia provides a higher utility than any
available alternative”, explains how active euthanasia is the best
alternative, or option, for a terminal illness patient. One of the
typical cases that fit the stated argument is a patient with throat
cancer where no treatment can halt any pain. “He is certain to
die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued,
but he does not want to go on living for those days since the
pain is unbearable.” (Rachels 589). Here we have a man who
will die in a short time and is in great pain. To do nothing, or
allow treatment to stop, as in passive euthanasia, would cause
the man the same pain as if nothing were changed, which would
cause a very high disutility or greater pain. For a man in the

same situation who is allowed to undergo active euthanasia,
their pain will end in a determined time, death is known and all
amends can be made. Looking at the utility of each situation we
find for passive euthanasia that the only positive or pleasure is
a moral certainty that a disease killed the man instead of
machine or drug, and the negatives or pains are the great
suffering that must be endured, and the inability to know when
life will finally expire. The utility of active euthanasia is
broken into the positives of having family members present, a
known time of death, and peace of mind knowing that the pain
will stop, while the negative is the pain that still must be
endured until the operation is completed. Clearly if any
numerical values were assigned to the different attributes the
option of active euthanasia offers the most benefits or utility to
any case of a painful, terminal illness patient. These utility
calculations, coupled with examples show how active euthanasia
provides the highest utility.
Objection to Premise 1:
When looking at euthanasia and the detriments that it can cause
it is easy to see beyond the simple argument to the greater
consequences and faults that the argument possesses. The first
premise states that a high utility value means that society ought
to do it. If society wanted to abolish the known government
because it was corrupt and replace it with a self-ruling planned
community because they believed it would yield the highest
utility, they would be placing themselves willingly into
anarchy. This example of anarchy vs. government was said in
order to show that maximum anticipated happiness does not
necessarily show a strong plan of action even in one case. We
can not know the future, but we can attempt to calculate it.
Advocates of one action may not incorporate all events into
utility and as a result initial happiness can not guide society’s
actions if they do not fully grasp the consequences. Therefore
when we say that we ought to allow active euthanasia because it

yields the highest utility it does not show that there is a direct
relationship between the highest utility and the action that
society should take because it does not encompass all aspect
and events.
Along with the object to the conditional premise by showing the
inability of utility to show a distinct action, the premise must be
reexamined to identify some of the terms. The first premise
said that because of high utility we ought to allow active
euthanasia. If we were to define ought as the moral obligation
of society instead of the identified course of action, then we
would be able to see a further breakdown of the relationship
between utility and ought. Once again assuming that ought is
equivalent to the moral action taken, we can see that high utility
does not equal moral goodness. One example of high utility and
low morality is to solve world hunger by using nuclear weapons
on the most populated nations or killing innocent people to
cause world peace. In the example of wiping out a third world,
overpopulated nations to solve world hunger, we create a higher
utility since everyone that needs food can use the now extreme
source of food, and the sums of pleasure and pain do not come
from the third world nations since they are no longer in
existence, therefore not part of the sums of happiness. Society
is happy since they are all well fed and there is no
overcrowding, but in order to do this we had to create a huge
moral disaster. The same can be said about the killing of
innocent people. If we killed innocent people to settle a land
dispute, we would have world peace since no nations have any
reasons for malice, but, as the previous example, we committed
a moral atrocity in order to attain the highest utility. With all
this being stated if we look at the argument again we can see
that even though we may or may not have high utility it is not
what society ought to do because it might be amoral to do so.
Objection to Premise 2:

The second premise, or the part that talks about the amount of
utility active euthanasia has, also has flawed parts that must be
addressed. When the premise states highest utility it is relating
to the basic equation of utilitarianism, or pleasure minus pain,
of all society for all alternatives. The equation can be
computed for active euthanasia with a much different result
since some attributes’ numerical values may have been poorly
assigned or left out entirely. Active euthanasia is a very bad
choice from a utilitarian perspective when examining the time
period before and after the euthanasia is performed. If we were
to compute this we would find pleasures of having a known time
of death and less pain than living, but for pains we find that we
are murdering a person even if it is out of mercy, an
unnecessary death if there is a cure discovered, and the pain of
knowing that the person died for no justifiable reason. Any
rational person would assign numbers that in any case would
result in a utility less than that of doing nothing especially if a
cure or even new pain drugs are discovered.
Active euthanasia is a poor option for utility even if we assume
that no new drug or therapy will be created within the lifetime
of a terminally ill person. Active euthanasia is the terminating
of life by killing the person with something else first. No
matter which method is employed it is still murder. To give a
lethal injection to a sick person is no different than giving it to
a criminal for the death penalty or even a random person. The
motive is the different, but the end is the same. Murder is a
very large pain no matter what is on the pleasure side, both with
the premature taking of life, and having a person intentionally
kill another. Passive euthanasia or the process of stopping
treatment is not nearly as bad. Going back to the example of a
sick person, an inmate, and a random person we find that the
sick person will still die, but at the correct time and because of
illness, the inmate and the random person will not be affected,
and will continue life as usual. The result of not allowing
active euthanasia is that there is no murder, and those who

should live, do live.
Rebuttal/Answer to the Objection to Premise 1
James Rachels’ argument of active euthanasia having the
highest utility and as a society we ought to allow it can still be
justified against the above objections by showing how the
objections do not apply. The first part of the objection to the
first premise that showed a relationship between utility and
action stated that happiness or utility does not condone a course
of action. The examples showed that high happiness could
sometimes yield poor consequences. The objection is valid if,
and only if, the same time frame is used, however if the entire
event, not just the immediate future is taken into account,
utilitarianism will not cause a poor result from high happiness.
When calculating utility every part of the event and every
person must be taken into account or else the calculation will be
invalid. If all options and all people are calculated into the
basic utilitarian equation then there is a very strong relationship
between utility and what we ought to do. Since utilitarianism,
when calculated correctly, does not lead to poor consequences
but the happiest one for society, the relationship in the first
premise of utility and ought is sound.
Changing the working definition of ought to mean the choice
made by morality only destroys the relationship from utility to
moral obligation if utility is not fully understood. “Justice is a
name for certain moral requirements which, regarded
collectively, stand higher in the scale of social utility” (Mill
43). Knowing now that justice, in regards to utilitarianism, is
equivalent to moral standards, and that moral standards are
placed above happiness/reduced pain we can determine that
morality and utility are equivalent in any case since any
reduction in morality would be a direct reduction in utility.
Morality and utility are equivalent for utilitarianism, so a moral
obligation can be derived from the best utilitarian alternative,
and because morality obligations are linked to utilitarianism,

the relationship in premise one remains stable and untarnished.
Rebuttal/Answer to the Objection to Premise 2
Medical breakthroughs happen very quickly and may lead to
cures for many terminal diseases, but it also brings false hopes
to those who require the breakthrough. Having a cure
introduced days after a terminally ill person expires is painful
regardless if the person underwent euthanasia. No person is
ever assured that a cure will be introduced or even pass through
the Food and Drug Administration in time to make a difference
in an ill person’s life. The unlikeness of a suitable treatment
developed in the remaining time of a person’s life coupled with
the immense pain of their condition makes active euthanasia the
highest utilitarian alternative. To have a promise of a drug that
does not work or even working one would cause a person to
suffer with their great pain until they are able to get the new
treatment, if they are able to get the new treatment at all. This
time suffering causes great such a great disutility that it is not
worth living through the time where a drug might appear with
the possible result of the patient expiring before it can be
administered. Active euthanasia will not differ from what is
planned because the only possibility is death. The great
reduction in suffering and the tranquility of personal thought
makes active euthanasia a higher utility than passive/no
euthanasia even if there is a possible cure in the future.
Active euthanasia does not generate less of a utility than any
alternative because it involves killing of a person instead of
letting them die of their illness. Active euthanasia is only
murder if the person receiving it does not request or want it.
Because it is requested and only finishes what the human body
started, it can not and is not classified as murder. Rachels
brought up an example of babies born with Down’s syndrome
and how the current method is to let them die. “I can also
understand why other people favor destroying these babies

quickly and painlessly. Buy why should anyone favor letting
‘dehydration and infection wither a tiny being over hours and
days’” (Rachels 590). Any utilitarian can see that if this baby
must die either by withering away or by active euthanasia, the
highest utility is active euthanasia. This is in no way murder
since the action of active euthanasia is that of ending suffering
and not the cruel unwilling termination of life that makes up
murder. Murder is the killing with malice and the stealing of
life from a victim, while active euthanasia is the benevolent
attempt to end pain by terminating life. These definitions are
clearly not the same, and if they are not the same active
euthanasia can not be murder. Since active euthanasia is not
murder, the methods of terminating life do not in any way
impact utility.
Conclusion
James Rachels made the argument that active euthanasia is the
preferable action when a person is in great, unending pain.
Objections can be made and answered on the morality of killing
someone even if it is out of mercy and the possible
consequences if a new treatment is discovered after euthanasia
is performed. These were answered by stating that murder is
done with malice, while euthanasia is done to end suffering, and
that a new treatment would not be likely to occur in that
timeframe. No matter what the motives are for killing someone,
there is still the action of one person stopping the life of
another and morally we all feel that we ought not to kill. While
a new treatment may not be discovered often, it only takes one
person to die needlessly before their time to show society what
a mistake active euthanasia is. If any philosophical view of life
or living were absolutely correct, then it is likely that all the
world would be following it and society would not have to
debate arguments like the one presented here. Perhaps the only
answer to arguments like this is to change the way we think, not
to justify our position endlessly.

Directions This may be done table format. APA format is requ.docx

Directions This may be done table format. APA format is requ.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Directions This may be done table format. APA format is requ.docx(20)

More from cuddietheresa(20)

Recently uploaded(20)

Directions This may be done table format. APA format is requ.docx