Peer Review of Classmate’s Post on Success and Failure of Quality Thinking

Instructions:
You will review a classmate's forum post from the "Module 2 Post and Reply A: Historical Example" assignment to demonstrate several skills of close reading. You will demonstrate what you learned in the reading assignment to mark up and paraphrase a text.
There are three parts of this assignment. Include all three parts in a single post in the Module 3 Post forum.
1. Copy a classmate's forum post from the "Module 2 Post and Reply A: Historical Example" assignment. Apply close reading to the post, and mark it up using markings of your own or those suggested on p 17, "Marking and Abbreviations" in How to Read a Paragraph (link right here:
https://github(dot)com/keldavis/files/blob/main/how_to_read_paragraph_pg_16-17.pdf). One way to do this is to quote the text you are commenting on, then on the following line make your comment. For example:
"This is a strong conclusion based on my evidence."
I disagree for the following reason: ...
Create a new thread in the Module 3 forum that contains your classmate's post with your markup and comments; don't forget to include Parts 2 and 3 below before submitting the thread.
2. Explicate each historic example in your classmate's post by stating the main point in one or two sentences based on the information in the post. In addition, analyze their work based on the Elements of Thought by answering the following questions:
a) Is the main purpose and the key questions well stated? Are they clear and unbiased?
b) Does the writer cite relevant evidence, experiences, and/or information essential to the issue?
c) Does the writer develop a definite line of reasoning, explaining well how he or she is arriving at his or her conclusions?
d) Is the writer's reasoning well-supported?
e) Does the writer show sensitivity to alternative points of view or lines of reasoning?
f) Does the writer provide a logical conclusion with the information provided?
3. Using the rubric in Table 1, assess the level of performance for the three criteria. List the criteria and include a number for each; for example,
Explanation of issues: 3
Evidence: 2
Conclusions: 2
Rubric:
Explanation of issues
Excellent (3 points)
Issue/problem is stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information
necessary for full understanding.
Accomplished (2 points)
Issue/problem is stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by
omissions.
Developing (1 point)
Issue/problem is stated but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored,
boundaries undetermined, and/ or backgrounds unknown.
Novice (0 points)
Issue/problem is stated without clarification or description.
Evidence
Excellent (3 points)
Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a
comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Clearly distinguishes between fact and opinion and
acknowledges value judgments.
Accomplished (2 points)
Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation evaluation to develop a coherent
analysis or synthesis. Distinguishes between fact and opinion and acknowledges value judgments.
Developing (1 point)
Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a
coherent analysis or synthesis. Not clear the writer can distinguish between fact and opinion.
Novice (0 points)
Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation. Does not distinguish
between fact and opinion
Conclusions and related outcomes
Excellent (3 points)
Conclusions and related outcomes (consequences and implications) are logical and reflect student’s
informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.
Accomplished (2 points)
Conclusion is logically tied to a range of information, including opposing viewpoints; related
outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.
Developing (1 point)
Conclusion is logically tied to information (because information is chosen to fit the desired
conclusion); some related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.
Novice (0 points)
Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed; related outcomes
(consequences and implications) are oversimplified.
Peer Post that needs to be reviewed
Author: Alex Saunders
A historical example of success in quality thinking is the Mercedes-Benz 500I. Designed from scratch and built in secret by Ilmor Engineering after rule changes the previous season, it dominated its one and only race, the 1994 Indianapolis 500. The design of this engine came about after astute recognition of a minor and overlooked rule change allowing purpose-built pushrod engines advantages in displacement and turbocharger boost over the more common overhead cam engine. It was thought that pushrod engines would not have the reliability to last for 500 miles of racing, but Ilmor's extensive testing plan showed that it was possible. The design had to be built and tested in secrecy to both keep any other team or manufacturer from coming up with their own version, but also to keep the sanctioning body from making any last minute rule changes that would make the entire project for naught. Two specific events during the engine's development illustrate quality thinking and processes. First, while the original design showed disappointing horsepower numbers early in testing, the initiative of an engineer to try a softer valve-train design against the conventional wisdom's requirement (and his boss' insistence) of as little flex as possible created a massive increase in power. Second, when the engine had developed serious issues with an unproven ECU, Ilmor was able to modify the ECU used in their standard engine to unleash the full potential of this new design, after originally assuming that it would not be adaptable to the difference in V-angle.
A historical example of failure in quality thinking is the 17th century Swedish warship Vasa. Hurriedly constructed to be the most powerful warship afloat during Sweden's war with Poland-Lithuania, she heeled over and sank on her maiden voyage on a relatively calm day. The ship's design was dangerously unstable due to a few factors. First, the design of the ship had been changed multiple times during construction, leading to a final design that was larger and more top-heavy than originally planned, since the designer assumed that a successful smaller design could be upscaled to the required larger design. The addition of a second gun deck in particular made the ship's center of gravity too high and left the ship vulnerable to rolling. Second, no detailed plans were ever drawn up for its construction, so that there was no standardization between construction teams working on the ship. This was most notable in that it caused the design to naturally lean to the port side since two different types of feet were used, one with twelve inches and one with eleven. The light winds encountered on Vasa's fatal voyage eventually forced the ship to roll towards the port side to the point where water entered through the lower gun ports. Finally, the ship design was not verified through scientific testing before construction. The only testing on the ship's stability was done by having the crew run side-to-side to simulate weight transfers. While this was still enough to show that the ship was unstable, no corrective action was taken before its only voyage.
References
Greuter, Henri. “Mercedosaurus Rex at Indianapolic Park: The Penske-Mercedes PC23-500I.” 8W - What? - Penske-Mercedes PC23 500i, 25 Sept. 2014, forix.autosport.com/8w/penske-mercedes-pc23.html.
Gurss, Jade. Beast. Octane Press, 2014.
Harish, Ajay. “Why The Swedish Vasa Ship Sank – An Engineer's Explanation.” SimScale, 17 Oct. 2019, www(dot)simscale(dot)com/blog/2017/12/vasa-ship-sank/ (Links to an external site.).
Chatterjee, Rhitu. “New Clues Emerge in Centuries-Old Swedish Shipwreck.” The World from PRX, 23 Feb. 2012, www(dot)pri(dot)org/stories/2012-02-23/new-clues-emerge-centuries-old-swedish-shipwreck.