I took this class at St. Edward's University, and while was cleaning up my office, I came across these couple of pages I saved from it. I believe my paper for that class is also posted on here.
<ul><li><p>Analytical Procedure in Decision-Making Operations Instruments A. What is the situation/problem? 1. Data -> Guess -> Judgment of Fact 2. What institutions are involved? 1. Sources of Evidence 2. Notion of schemes of recurrence 3. Formulation of diagnosis B. Why is it a significant problem? 1. Identifying parties affected 2. Identifying claims, Preferred outcomes & obligations 3. Judgment of value 1. Forms of bias 2. Ends and purposes 3. Formulation of purpose </p><p>C. What can be done? 1. Identifying options 2. Consequences of each option? 3. Reliability of theories? Real possibilities? 4. Judgment of fact 1. Playing Devils Advocate 2. Predictions & theories 3. Precedents & checklist of fallacies 4. Formulation of means </p><p>D. What should be done and why? 1. Which option preferred & why? 2. How are goods ranked? 3. Deciding/choosing 1. Principle of equality 2. Comparative principle 3. Formulation of policy E. Implementing the decision 1. Monitoring outcomes 2. Making adjustments 1. Appraisal 2. Policy revisions </p></li><li><p>Format for the Presentations A. Sketch of the policy proposal I. What is the situation/problem? a. What is your diagnosis of the situation? b. What schemes of recurrence are involved? c. What evidence is there that a problem exists? II. Why is it a significant problem? a. What parties or institutions are affected? b. What are their interests, preferred outcomes and obligations? c. What is the purpose or end of your proposal? III. What can be done? a. What options or means could achieve the purpose? b. What consequences do you predict for each of them? c. What theories are you relying on for these predictions? d. How reliable are these theories? IV. What should be done? a. What option do you recommend? b. Why do you choose it? c. Formulate your reasons as a comparative principle B. Defense of competent performance 1. How well did I check for competing obligations amid schemes of recurrence? 2. How well did I check for bias, for oversights of excluded parties, for unexpected consequences? 3. How well did I try to imagine creative alternatives to the more commonly recognized options? 4. What questions did I ask about the reliability of the theories? 5. Why do I think the ranking of goods behind my choice is best? 6. Finally: ask the audience whether they agree with the proposal </p></li></ul>