An Introduction to Italian

What I Had A Grate Class With My Professor Mona - 900 Words

I had a grate class with my Professor Mona, she was a nice instructor and she helped me to improve my English skills. For example, my weaknesses points as an English student, I’m not a good reader, I had a lot of grammatical mistakes, so she helped me by the reading assignments and she asked me to visit the writing center to improve my grammar skills. Also she helped me to improve and develop my strengths points as an English student, I’m good speaker so she improved this skill by presentation and group decision. I really appreciate her help and her support. In this class I learned a lot of new skills such as, the rhetorical, visual argument and proposal. I would like to write about each topic individually. First topic was rhetorical essay, I loved this topic because it clarifies a lot of in the essay such as the appeals and who it is important for any paper in the future. Second topic was the visual argument, this topic helped me to create my first visual argument, present it front my classmate, and try to send my message to people. Third topic was proposal, this topic helped me by find a problem then find a solution and find a counterargument. This is helped me to look at any problem from different views. Now I’m writing the reflection (letter) to my professor, I’m so happy because I can express my feelings and express my thanks and gratitude to the best English teacher ever. I’m so glad that I’m one of her student because that allowed me to learn from her experience and

Contract and United Airlines free essay sample

Travel Systems, Inc. ACT 1 Russell Smith knew why he had been summoned to the office of A. Walter Rognlien, the 74-year-old chairman of the board and chief executive officer (CEO) of Smith’s employer, Cardillo Travel Systems, Inc. Just two days earlier, Cardillo’s in-house attorney, Raymond Riley, had requested that Smith, the company’s controller, sign an affidavit regarding the nature of a transaction Rognlien had negotiated with the United Airlines. The affidavit stated that the transaction involves $203,000 payment by United Airlines to Cardillo but failed to disclose why the payment was being made or for what specific purpose the funds would be used. The affidavit included a statement indicating that Cardillo’s stockholders’ equity exceeded $3 million, a statement that Smith knew to be incorrect. Smith also knew that Cardillo was involved in a lawsuit and that court injunction issued in the case required the company to maintain stockholders’ equity of at least million. Because of the blatant misrepresentation in the affidavit concerning Cardillo’s stockholders’ equity and a sense of uneasiness regarding United Airlines’ payment to Cardillo, Smith had refused to sign the affidavit. When Smith stepped into Rognlien’s office on that day in May 1985, he found not only Rognlien but also Riley and two other Cardillo executives. One of the other executives was Esther Lawrence, the firm’s energetic 44-year-old persistent and chief operating officer (COO) and Rognlien’s wife and confidante. Lawrence, a long-time employee, had assumed control of Cardillo’s day-to-day operations in 1948. Rognlien’s two sons by a previous marriage had left the company in the early 1980s following a power struggle with Lawrence and their father. As Smith sat waiting for the meeting to begin, his apprehension mounted. Although Cardillo had a long and proud history, in recent years the company had begun experiencing serious financial problems. Founded in 1935 and purchased in 1956 by Rognlien, Cardillo ranked as the fourth-largest company in the travel agency industry and was the first to be listed on a national stock exchange. Cardillo’s annual revenues had steadily increased after Rognlien acquired the company, approaching $100 million by 1984. Unfortunately, the company’s operating expenses had increased more rapidly. Between 1982 and 1984, Cardillo posted collective losses of nearly $1. 5 million. These poor operating results were largely due to an aggressive franchising strategy implemented by Rognlien. In 1984 alone that strategy more than doubled the number of travel agency franchises operated by Cardillo. Shortly after the meeting began, the overbearing and volatile Rognlien demanded that Smith sign the affidavit. When Smith steadfastly refused, Rognlien showed him the first page of an unsigned agreement between United Airlines and Cardillo. Rognlien then explained that the $203,000 payment was intended to cover expenses incurred by Cardillo in changing from American Airlines’ Apollo system. Although the payment was intended to reimburse Cardillo for those expenses and was refundable to United Airlines if not spent, Rognlien wanted Smith to record the payment immediately as revenue. Not surprisingly, Roglien’s suggested treatment of the United Airlines payment would allow Cardillo to meet the $3 million minimum stockholders’ equity threshold established by the court order outstanding against the company. Without hesitation, Smith informed Rognlien that recognizing the United Airlines payment as revenue would be improper. At that point, â€Å"Rognlien told Smith that he was incompetent and unprofessional because he refused to book the united payment as income. Rognlien further told Smith that Cardillo did not need a controller like Smith who would not do what was expected of him†. ACT 2 In November 1985, Helen Shepherd, the audit partner supervising the 1985 audit of Cardillo by Touche Ross, stumbled across information in the client’s files regarding the agreement Rognlien had negotiated with United Airlines earlier that year. When Shepherd asked her subordinates about this agreement, one of them told her of a $ 203,000 adjusting entry Cardillo had recorded in late June. That entry, which follows, had been approved by Lawrence and was apparently linked to the United Airlines-Cardillo transaction: Dr ReceivablesUnited Airlines$203,210 Cr Travel Commissions and Fees203,210 Shepherd’s subordinates had discovered the adjusting entry during their second-quarter review of Cardillo’s form 10-Q statement. When asked, Lawrence explanation without attempting to corroborate it with other audit evidence. After discussing the adjusting entry with her subordinates, Shepherd questioned Lawrence. Lawrence insisted that the adjusting entry had been properly recorded. Shepherd than requested that Lawrence asks United Airlines to provide Touch Ross with a confirmation verifying the key stipulations of the agreement with Cardillo. Shepherd’s concern regarding the adjusting entry stemmed from information she had reviewed in the client’s files that the United Airlines payment to Cardillo was refundable under certain conditions and thus not recognizable immediately as revenue. Shortly after the meeting between Shepherd and Lawrence, Walter Rognlien contacted the audit partner. Like Lawrence, Rognlien maintained that the $203,000 amount had been properly recorded as commission revenue during the second quarter. Rognlien also told Shepherd that the disputed amount, which United Airlines paid to Cardillo during the third quarter of 1985, was not refundable to United Airlines under any circumstances. After some prodding by Shepherd, Rognlien agreed to allow her to request a confirmation from United Airlines concerning certain features of the agreement. Shepherd received the requested confirmation from United Airlines on December 17, 1986. The confirmation stated that the disputed amount was refundable through 1990 if certain stipulations of the contractual agreement between the two parties were not fulfilled. After receiving the confirmation, Shepherd called Rognlien and asked him to explain the obvious difference of opinion between United Airlines and Cardillo regarding the terms of their agreement with the chairman of the board of United Airlines. â€Å"Rognlien claimed that pursuant to this confidential business arrangement, the $203,210 would never have to repaid the United. Shepherd’s conversation with Rognlien refused. In fact, as Rognlien knew, no such agreement existed. † A few days following Shepherd’s conversation with Rognlien, she advised William Kaye, Cardillo’s vice president of finance, that the $203,000 amount could not be recognized as revenue until the contractual agreement with United Airlines expired in 1990. Kaye refused to make the appropriate adjusting entry, explaining that Lawrence had insisted that the payment from United Airlines be credited to a revenue account. On December 30, 1958, Rognlien called Shepherd and told her that he was terminating Cardillo’s relationship with Touche Ross. In early February 1986, Cardillo filled a form 8-K statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notifying that agency of the company’s change in auditors. SEC regulations required Cardillo to disclose in the 8-K statement any disagreements involving accounting, auditing, or financial reporting issues with its former auditor. The 8-K, signed by Lawrence, indicated that no such disagreements preceded Cardillo’s decision to dismiss Touche Ross. SEC regulations also required Touche Ross to draft a letter commenting on the existence of any disagreements with Cardillo. This letter had to be filed as an exhibit to the 8-K statement. In touche Ross’s exhibit letter, Shepherd discussed that the improper accounting treatment given that transaction resulted in misrepresented financial statements for Cardillo for the six months ended June 30, 1985, and the nine months ended September 30, 1985. In late February 1986, Raymond Riley, Cardillo’s legal counsel, wrote Shepherd and insisted that she had misinterpreted the United Airlines-Cardillo transaction in the Touch Ross exhibit letter filed with the company’s 8-K. Riley also informed Shepherd that Cardillo would not pay the $17,500 invoice that Touche Ross had submitted to his company. This invoice was for professional services Touche Ross had rendered prior to being dismissed by Rognlien. ACT 3 On January 21, 1986, Cardillo retained KMG Main Hurdman (KMG) to replace Touche Ross as its independent audit firm. KMG soon addressed the accounting treatment Cardillo had applied to the United Airlines payment. When KMG personnel discussed the payment with Rognlien, he informed them to the alleged secret arrangement with United Airlines that superseded the written contractual agreement. According to Rognlien, the secret arrangement precluded United Airlines from demanding a refund of the $203,000 payment under any circumstances. KMG refused to accept this explanation. Roger Shlonsky, the KMG audit partner responsible for Cardillo engagement, told Rognlien that the payment would have to be recognized as revenue on a pro rata basis over the five-year period of the written contractual agreement with United Airlines. Cardillo began experiencing severe liquidity problems in early 1986. These problems worsened a few months later when a judge imposed a $685,000 judgment on Cardillo to resolve a civil suit filed against the company. Following the judge? s ruling Raymond Riley alerted Rognlien and Lawrence that the adverse judgment qualified as a â€Å"material event† and thus has to be reported to the SEC in a Form 8-K filling. In the memorandum he sent to his superiors, Riley discussed the serious implications of not disclosing the settlement to the SEC: â€Å"My primary concern by not releasing such report and information is that the officers and directors of Cardillo may be subject to violation of rule 10b-5 of the SEC rules by failing to disclose information that may be material to a potential investor. Within 10 days of receiving Riley’s memorandum, Rognlien sold 100,000 shares of Cardillo stock in the open market. Two weeks later, Lawrence issued a press release disclosing for the first time the adverse legal settlement or that Cardillo remained viable only because Rognlien had invested in the company the proceeds from the sale of the 100,000 shares of stock. Additionally, Lawrence’s press release, Roger Shlonsky met with Rognlien and Lawrence. Shlonsky informed them that the press released grossly understated Cardillo’s estimated loss for fiscal 1985. Shortly after that meeting, KMG resigned as Cardillo’s independent audit firm. EPILOGUE In May 1987, the creditors of Cardillo Travel Systems, Inc. forced the company into involuntary bankruptcy proceedings. Later that same year, the SEC concluded a lengthy investigation of the firm. The SEC found that Rognlien, Lawrence, and Kaye had violated several provisions of the federal securities laws. These violations included making false representations to outside auditors, failing to maintain accurate financial records, and failing to file prompt financial reports with the SEC, In addition, the federal agency charged Rognlien with violating the insider trading provisions of the federal securities laws. As a result of these findings, the SEC imposed permanent injunctions on each of the three individuals that prohibit them from engaging in future violations of federal securities laws. The SEC also attempted to recover from Rognlien the $237,000 he received from selling the 100,000 shares of Cardillo stock in April 1986. In January 1989, the two parties resolved this matter when Rognlien agreed to pay the Sec $60,000

Operational Definition.Pdf free essay sample

Operational definitions serve two essential reposes: (1) They establish the rules and procedures the research investigator will use to measure the key variables of the study, and (2) they provide unambiguous meaning to terms that otherwise might be Interpreted in different ways. Every research proposal must include operational definitions of major variables and terms. Operational Definitions of Variables Suppose that a dependent variable of a study is knowledge about how HIATUS is transmitted.Before this variable can be measured, It is necessary first to establish the operational procedures that specify how the measurement will be made and at he same time define what the researcher means by the words knowledge about how HIATUS is transmitted. This variable must be defined in terms of events that are observable by the senses and therefore measurable. The observable events serve as an indicator of the variable, knowledge about HIVE AIDS transmission. Alone and by Itself, knowledge Is not observable by the senses. It Is an abstract concept. You cannot touch knowledge, see It, smell It, taste It, or hear It. What Is needed Is an observable event that can be measured and that Indicates knowledge. Usually, such an indicator of knowledge in an HIATUS study is based on a series of questions. For example, you might ask a respondent, Do you know how a person can become infected with AIDS? Please list all the ways you know a person can get AIDS. Can a person get AIDS from a mosquito bite? Can HIATUS be transmitted through a mothers breast milk? Each of these questions Indicates whether the respondent knows about certain aspects of HIVE/AIDS transmission. Asking a question and hearing a response is an observable event that can be measured. A research study might ask ten HIATUS knowledge questions. Each time a respondent gives an answer that indicates knowledge about HIATUS transmission, the researcher could record a score of one. Every time an answer is given that does not indicate knowledge about HIATUS transmission, the researcher could record a score of O.For each respondent, the researcher could then add the total number of score would range from O correct answers to ten correct answers. Persons with a score of O would be operationally defined as having no knowledge about HIVE/AIDS transmission. Persons with a score of ten would be operationally defined as having a gig level of knowledge about HIVE AIDS transmission. In your research proposal, the operational definition of knowledge might appear as: Knowledge about HIVE/AIDS transmission This is not the only way the variable could be defined operationally.You might wish to establish categories of HIVE/AIDS knowledge, distinguishing between those respondents who have high HIVE AIDS knowledge, medium knowledge, low knowledge, and no knowledge. Each of these levels is a category of the variable, and each category requires an operational rule that tells you how to assign any given respondent to the category. One way of operationally defining the categories might be as follows: High knowledge Correct responses to eight or more of the ten questions. Correct responses to between four and seven of the ten questions.Medium knowledge Low knowledge Correct responses to between one and three of the ten questions. No correct answers to any of the ten questions. No knowledge The number of correct answers a respondent gives to ten questions on HIATUS transmission. Note that the four categories of the variable are mutually exclusive, that is, they do not overlap. According to the operational rules established, a person cannot be laced in the category High Knowledge and at the same time be placed in the Medium, Low, or No category. The categories are also totally inclusive.Thus, in the example above, each of the four categories of the variable-?knowledge about HOW AIDS transmission-?should have approximately 25 percent of the respondents in the study population. If it is necessary to examine the response distribution of a variable before the procedures for establishing categories can be determined, then in the operational definition section of a study proposal the category names can be specified, but you should include a note indicating that each category will consist of approximately equal numbers of respondents.All variables must have at least two or more categories, or they are not variables but instead are constants. Whenever you are operationally defining a variable, it is always better to divide the variable into many categories instead of Just a few. In the examples given above, the variable knowledge about HIVE/AIDS transmission ranges from O to ten. That range gives a total of 1 1 categories. Subsequently, in the second example shown below, we collapsed these 11 categories into Just four categories consisting of high, medium, low, and no knowledge.If we wanted to, we could go even further and collapse the four categories into Just two: Knowledge of HIVE/AIDS transmission No knowledge of HOW AIDS transmission If you start with many categories, it is always easy to collapse these down to Just a few. But do not make the mistake of starting with Just a few categories, because subsequently you cannot expand them. Collapsing the categories of a variable is usually done after data collection has been completed and the frequency distribution of the variable has been examined. Sometimes it is possible to determine the disagrees of a variable on the basis of a good questionnaire pretest.Examples of Operationally Defined Variables Condom use The reported use of a condom at the last act of intercourse. The reported use of a condom during the last five or more acts of intercourse. Any peer educator who holds at least one group meeting on HIVE/AIDS per month or visits at least two homes of PLEA per month. Any village that has three or more of the following facilities: electricity, a government health clinic, a paved road within half a mile, a primary school, a bank, a post office, irrigation for 50 percent or more of the farmland. Peer educator performance Modern village A correct response to one or more of the ten questions.No correct answers to any of the ten questions. 41 Operational Definitions of Terms Recall that a hypothesis is a statement about an expected relationship between two or more variables. Just as it is necessary to define variables operationally, it is also necessary to operationally define the terms that indicate the nature of the relationship between the variables. For example, in many hypothesis statements, you will find such terms as those shown below: more than less than higher than lower Han greater than larger than bigger than smaller than In this example, the training program is the independent variable. In the hypothesis, this variable is already defined, at least partially, as five weeks long and field-based. Knowledge about HIVE/AIDS transmission is the dependent variable. We already have defined this variable as the number of correct responses to ten questions. What remains to be done is to define the term increase. If you do not define this term, you will find it impossible to know when the hypothesis has been proved or disproved. In there words, you need a standard of comparison that will tell you increase by how much.One way to define increase might be the following: Increase = Among peer educators, a mean HIVE AIDS knowledge score on the postposition test that is significantly greater (p 05) than the mean HIV/AIDS knowledge score of a control group of peer educators who did not participate in the training program. Note that this operational definition not only tells us the meaning of increase but also gives us the procedures that will be used to measure the increase. The mean HIV/AIDS gainst the mean HIV/AIDS knowledge score of a control group.The hypothesis will be accepted only if the mean score of the peer educators in the experimental group is greater than and significantly different from the mean score of the control group. To be absolutely clear, we also should define the word significantly: You are also likely to see in hypothesis statements such words as these: safer acceptable improved significant expanded increased Each of these terms can have a variety of meanings, so each requires an operational definition for the research proposal.The basic problem with such terms as more than or less than or increased is that they suggest a comparison but do not indica te the standard for the comparison. We need to know how much more and how much less and increased by how much. Suppose a study has the following simple hypothesis: A five-week, field-based training program will increase the knowledge about HIVE/AIDS transmission among peer educators who have taken the program. Significantly = A probability equal to or greater than . 95 that the mean score of the peer educators in the experimental group is higher than the control group mean core. 2 To summarize, operational definitions establish the rules and procedures an investigator plans to use to measure and give meaning to variables and terms. The operational definition identifies indicators that are observable events. We must be able to ask a question, hear a response, see a behavior, record an action, and measure an attribute. The definition establishes categories for variables. The categories must be mutually exclusive and totally inclusive. Operational definitions also establish the standard of comparison the investigator will use to either accept or reject a hypothesis.