This is a continuation of the first and second assignments and uses your accumulated research. Imagine you are two different lobbyists, supporting two different sides of the policy issue you wrote about in the Week 6 assignment, Analyzing Policy.

Submit your revisions from the Week 3 assignment, Historical Perspective, and the Week 6 assignment, Analyzing Policy based on your professor's feedback. You will be graded on your revisions. Then, write a 4-5 page paper in which you:

• Write a one-page position in favor of the policy.
• Write a one-page position against the policy.
• Write a one-page response to the argument in favor of the policy.
• Write a one-page response to the argument against the policy.
• Use at least two of the following arguments from Chapter 10 in your paper: normative, positive, anecdote, and evidence arguments. Clearly label each to receive credit.
• Include at least four peer-reviewed references (no more than five years old) from material outside the textbook. Note: Appropriate peer-reviewed references include scholarly articles and governmental websites. Wikipedia, other wikis, and any other websites ending in anything other than ".gov" do not qualify as peer-reviewed. Use Basic Search: Strayer University Online Library to identify references.

Note: The revisions from the Week 3 assignment, Historical Perspective, and the Week 6 assignment, Analyzing Policy, must flow together with this assignment as one seamless paper.