University of Phoenix Cost Volume Profit Analysis Assignment Content Purpose of Assignment The Case Study focuses on CVP (Cost-Volume-Profit), break-even,

University of Phoenix Cost Volume Profit Analysis Assignment Content
Purpose of Assignment
The Case Study focuses on CVP (Cost-Volume-Profit), break-even, and margin of safety analyses which allows students to experience working through a business scenario and applying these tools in managerial decision making.
Resources
Cost-Volume-Profit Analysis Grading Guide
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Tutorial help on Excel and Word functions can be found on the Microsoft Office website. There are also additional tutorials via the web offering support for Office products.

Scenario: Mary Willis is the advertising manager for Bargain Shoe Store. She is currently working on a major promotional campaign. Her ideas include the installation of a new lighting system and increased display space that will add $24,000 in fixed costs to the $270,000 in fixed costs currently spent. In addition, Mary is proposing a 5% price decrease ($40 to $38) will produce a 20% increase in sales volume (20,000 to 24,000). Variable costs will remain at $24 per pair of shoes. Management is impressed with Mary’s ideas but concerned about the effects these changes will have on the break-even point and the margin of safety.
Assignment Steps
Complete the following:
Compute the current break-even point in units, and compare it to the break-even point in units if Mary’s ideas are used.
Compute the margin of safety ratio for current operations and after Mary’s changes are introduced (Round to nearest full percent).
Prepare a CVP (Cost-Volume-Profit) income statement for current operations and after Mary’s changes are introduced.

Prepare a maximum 700-word informal memo to management addressing Mary’s suggested changes.
Explain whether Mary’s changes should be adopted. Why or why not? Analyze the above information (three bullet points above) and use this information to support your suggestion.

Show your work in Microsoft Word or Excel.
Complete calculations/computations using Microsoft Word or Excel. WR 39C: ARGUMENT & RESEARCH
_______________________________________
Your ePortfolio: Components and Grading Criteria
WR 39C
Logistical Matters: The submission deadline of your final ePortfolio is Tuesday June 11 at 5:00 pm. To
submit your ePortfolio please make it publicly viewable. (We will talk about how to enable the publicly
viewable option.)
I. Its Contents
A. The Basics
Required Elements:
-Reflective Introduction (1300 words minimum, multimodal)
-Week 1 Self Assessment
-Historical Conversations Project, Graded Version (with or without final grade and comments)
-Advocacy Project, Graded Version
While the required elements will give a basic shape to your ePortfolio, the specific details of its
organization are yours to construct. Think of your portfolio as a growing archive that will become full of
interesting pieces of evidence as the quarter progresses. You will quickly accumulate artifacts that
document your learning. Some of these artifacts will become particularly meaningful. Use them—things
like drafts, instructor or peer comments, organizational notes, before and after versions of sentences and
paragraphs, final versions of your compositions, for example—to document the work you have done,
demonstrate your role in your learning, and articulate your intellectual strategies as they pertain to
college level rhetoric, composition, and communication.
Be creative and attentive when making choices about organizing the sections and pages in your portfolio.
For example, are the compositions going to serve as major organizational elements by following the
reflective introduction in sequential order? Or, are you going to place the compositions and other
examples of your best writing together in one “Showcase Writing Section” and organize the other
elements of your portfolio in a different manner, along thematic lines, (“Revision Strategies,” “Productive
Mistakes”), or in terms of notable developments in your writing (“My Breakthroughs”)?
B. Reflective Introduction (1300 words minimum)
This document introduces you as a college-level writer, thinker, and communicator to a community of
your peers. Its fundamental purpose is to illustrate the role you have played in your learning over the
course of the quarter in 39C. You take responsibility for the quality of your work in this document (and in
your ePortfolio) by assessing your performance. The reflective introduction is an analytically incisive,
multi-modal composition that delivers balanced arguments about your learning and supports them
with carefully selected pieces of evidence.
1
Guiding Suggestions for Writing the Reflective Introduction
? The reflective introduction should be an analytically rigorous multimodal composition
that documents the rich textures of your learning this quarter and perhaps throughout the
WR39 sequence of courses (39A, 39B, and 39C).
? Think of the rest of your ePortfolio as an archive of evidence that you will use in
support of the arguments put forward in the introduction.
? Refer to the various pieces of evidence from the archival portion of the portfolio in the
introduction. Guide the reader to them and clearly explain your artifacts.
The reflective introduction should address and analyze your learning in the following four areas:
1. Transferring What You Know
Guiding Prompts: You do not need to answer all of the following questions, select those you find useful.
-Now that you are at the end of 39C (and the Lower Division Writing Requirement), take a look
back to where you were at the beginning of the quarter, or even at the beginning of your collegewriting experience, and analyze how your practices and habits of researching, writing, and
organizing have changed and evolved. You might consult your Week 1 Self Assessment to get
you started.
-How have your experiences in your writing classes at UCI influenced your personal history as a
writer in academic contexts? Has the WR39 series of courses and 39C in particular influenced
your ability to make effective choices about how to approach writing assignments in other
classes? Assignments such as lab reports, business memos, blue book exams, short response
papers, and any other examples of writing you have been assigned in here at UCI? In other words,
have you applied what you learned in the WR 39 series to writing assignments in other classes?
Have other classes and assignments influenced your writing process; if so, which ones? Please
explain using specific examples.
-Are you using a variety of different strategies to approach your writing assignments in all of your
classes? Are you using the same strategies in different contexts as you consider the demands of
different situations and assignments? If so, please explain such situations and assignments, and
give examples.
-Over the course of this quarter, while you were in WR39C, did you bring any of the strategies
you were learning in 39C into the other classes you were taking this quarter to help you with
writing assignments in these other classes? Please explain, and use examples.
-Did you bring strategies you learned in your other classes this quarter into 39C? Please explain,
and use examples.
2
2. Rhetoric, Argumentation, & Multi-modal Communication
Guiding Prompts: You do not need to answer all of the following questions, select those you find useful.
-What have you learned about argumentation and persuasion through the process of generating
two multi-modal compositions?
-Explain how creating a multi-modal composition helped you to articulate your arguments and
understand your ethos as the author.
-How did conducting research all throughout the drafting process help you to make decisions
about the organizational logic of your compositions? In what ways, specifically, did you
formulate and reformulate research strategies, framing questions, and guiding claims/arguments
by using research?
-Did you carefully select multimodal pieces of evidence? Why did you choose such examples?
Did making your argument visible by using multimodality help you to clarify your thesis?
-Can you explain how you arrived at the solutions you chose to analyze in your advocacy
composition?
-Was there a specific moment when your thesis became clear to you, when the light bulb
illuminated, and can you explain what you did to arrive at such a moment of clear insight?
-How did understanding stasis theory, GASCAP, and other rhetorical strategies for understanding
and producing arguments improve your ability to persuade an audience of people that are
different from you?
-Explain and demonstrate why and how you used various arguments and counter-arguments and
numerous and different sources to strengthen your claims.
3. Your Research Process
Guiding Prompts: You do not need to answer all of the following questions, select those you find useful.
-Have you experienced moments when the light bulb suddenly illuminated? Can you explain why
and how this happened?
-Explain what you have learned about the process of generating a research-based composition.
-What have you learned about arranging the elements of your compositions? Have you become
more skillful and able to control your presentation of evidence and integrate various pieces of
evidence into a coherent and meaningful argument?
-How did conducting research all throughout the drafting process help you to make decisions
about the organizational logic of your compositions? In what ways, specifically, did you
formulate and reformulate research strategies, framing questions, and guiding claims/arguments
by using research?
3
4. Revision
Guiding Prompts: You do not need to answer all of the following questions, select those you find useful.
-Explain your process of revision. How big of a role does revision play in your process of
generating and discovering arguments?
-Explain how you benefitted from feedback from your teacher and from your peers both in
workshops and in office hours. How do you respond to criticism? What sort of critic are you
becoming? Use examples of feedback you received on your work-in-progress, your final versions,
and in workshops, as well as advice you gave to your peers to address these questions.
-Analyze how you benefit from writing multiple drafts in terms of argumentative presentation,
evidentiary support, and narrative development.
-Explain and analyze the types of revisions that benefit you. Do you make broad, conceptual
revisions? Do you make structural revisions and reorganize paragraphs? Do you rewrite
sentences? Do you make fine word choices? Do you alter your body of evidence through research
or omission?
C. Supporting Materials
1. Selections & Selecting
Your portfolio should be populated by numerous artifacts. All of the “process” work you do will generate
artifacts; put them into your portfolio as you go along, knowing that you will continue to organize and
reorganize it over the course of the quarter. But select the most meaningful artifacts carefully, and write
detailed captions for them so that whoever views your ePort understands your reasons for choosing a
specific piece of evidence.
Possible Artifacts:
-Examples of your best writing
-“Before-and-After” examples of writing you revised
-Source evaluations and annotations
-Research proposals
-Examples of your writing from other classes in comparison to the writing for your WR 39C course
-Instructor & Peer feedback
-Cellphone pictures of your notetaking strategies, diagrams of your arguments, or other things that
represent you and your learning.
-Your source materials: video, pdf files, websites, cartoons, etcetera and so forth
-What else might you select?
II. Portfolio Grade (25% of Final Course Grade)
A. Grading Method: Reflective Introduction, Captions & Artifacts, and Organization & Creativity
? The grade for the reflective introduction establishes the base grade for the portfolio.
? The quality of the captions for numerous artifacts, and the clarity and creativity of the portfolio’s
organization may move the base grade up or down, in increments of 1/3, by one full letter grade.
4
For example, suppose you write a good reflective introduction and receive the grade of B on it,
but you submit a very well organized portfolio with detailed captions that explain handfuls of
artifacts in meaningful ways. Your overall grade for the portfolio may move up by 1/3, and you
would receive the grade of B+ for the portfolio. Suppose you get a B on your reflective
introduction but submit an excellent ePortfolio, one that’s meticulous in its organization and is
bursting with artifacts and detailed captions. Your grade may go up by 2/3, and you would then
receive the grade of A- on the final ePortfolio.
? There may be no adjustment of the base grade if the other aspects of the ePort are similar in
quality to the reflective introduction.
Guiding Questions for the Instructor:
-What is the overall quality of the reflective introduction in terms of argumentation? Are the arguments
well supported by multimodal evidence? Are the arguments substantive and supported by
artifacts? Are the arguments convincing?
-Has the student made persuasive arguments about his or her learning in the four specified areas in the
reflective introduction and throughout the portfolio?
-Are there enough artifacts to substantiate the arguments? Are the captions useful and well detailed?
-Is the portfolio well organized? Is it creatively organized?
-Are there typos, grammatical glitches, and other surface-level hitches?
5

Purchase answer to see full
attachment