Ph313, Spring 2014 guidelines for writing the term paper .docx

Ph313, Spring 2014: guidelines for writing the term paper
Expectations:
The size: A reasonable minimum size of the “main body” of the
term paper
(Introduction – the Main Section – the Closing Section), I
believe, is 5000 characters.
To give you an idea: go to the “Example”; between the title “I.
INTRODUCTION”,
and the end of the first paragraph on the third page (with the
last words: but almost
all of it is the “bad”
240
Pt isotope.), there are 4912 characters. So, 5000 characters
correspond to about 2 ½ single-spaced pages, or, about 4
double-spaced pages.
The title page, the abstract, figure captions and the list of
references should not be
included in the 5000 character count. No “minimum count” is
set for these paper

parts.
Figures: I would be disappointed if there are no graphic
illustrations in the paper –
say, at least two figures is a reasonable number. Figures may
be inserted in the text,
but it OK to give only a reference in the text (for example: see
Figure 1, or …as
shown in Figure 1), and put the figures (marked Figure 1,
Figure 2,…) at the end of
the document; the captions may be on a separate page with a
heading FIGURE
CAPTIONS.
References: references to, say, at least three sources (such as
books, printed articles,
or internet documents) should be given, but there is no upper
limit. A numbered list
of references should be placed right after the closing section,
with a heading List of
references, or something similar. Don’t put the whole address of
a given reference in
the text, give only the number on the list; for instance: … as
shown by Smith [1] and

later confirmed by Brown and co-workers [2],….
General remarks:
There are no rigid rules of writing scientific or technical
reports, or articles popularizing
science, new technologies, etc. However, there are certain
“rules of thumb” that have
emerged over time. If you take a copy of any scientific journal,
you will see that all
articles in it are composed in a similar manner, according to the
same “general scheme”.
They consist of distinctive elements, or “building blocks”, that
are arranged as follows:
there are two or
more authors), and her/his/their affiliation(s). The title has to
give the reader a
general idea of what the paper is about.
-paragraph summary of the entire paper. It
should briefly
describe the question posed in the paper, and the conclusions. It
should be
possible to determine the major points of the paper by reading

it. The abstract is
very important for the reader, because after reading it she/he
usually makes a
decision of whether the subject is of interest to her/him, and
whether the entire
paper is worth reading (although the abstract is located at the
beginning of the
paper, it is easiest to write it after the paper is completed).
– and it also has to be “structured”,
i.e., it should contain
the following “blocs”:
(a) a section titled “Introduction” – it should explain why the
topic
presented in the paper is important. And it may also outline the
“general plan” of presenting the material in the main part – for
instance, it may identify and briefly describe the “subtopics”
that will
be discussed in it.
(b) The “main section” of the body. It may be a single section,
but if the
general topic presented in the paper may be split into several
“subtopics”, it makes sense to divide the “main section” into

“subsections”, each one discussing a separate “subtopic”.
Note: In the past years, it happened more than once that in the
in
term papers students had written for me, some of them had used
the
phrases “Body of the paper” or “Main section” as titles. It is
not
appropriate, of course – if you don’t understand why :o) , please
pay
me a visit during my office hours, and I will explain.
(c) A closing section, called “Summary and conclusions” (or
“Discussion”, or “Closing remarks” – whatever suits the author
better).
Here the major points of the paper should be again summarized,
with
a brief discussion (if needed) following, and then a paragraph or
two
containing the final conclusions. A person writing a report or
article
usually wants to pass certain message to the reader – so, the
closing
section is the right place to do that. Of course, the message
should be
passed to the reader in an elegant manner, using highly logical

arguments, not “brutal propaganda”.
paper (references are
very important, what is written in a good paper always has to
be based on
trustworthy sources, and the reader must be given a chance to
access those
sources her/himself. Also, if the paper is not in a final printed
form, but in a
manuscript form, then putting figures and their captions in the
main body may
not be easy. A common practice is therefore to put the figures –
each on a
separate page – after the list of references, and to group all
captions on yet
another page.
As I say, this is not a “rigid recipe”, but time has proven that
following the above “rules
of thumb” helps to attain maximum clarity of the presented
material, and is also a form
convenient to a potential reader. In most cases, the reader
“scans” the paper not exectly

section is very often read
before the main section. It should be kept in mind, and the
closing section should give a
reader an additional temptation to read the main section, in the
case she/he has skipped
reading it.
So, I would like you to follow the above “rules of thumb”. Now,
some practical
instructions, what I expect:
body should start at
Page 2. A reasonable length of the main body, if the paper is
written by a single
author, is five double-spaced pages; and eight pages if there are
two authors.
from several sources.
It should be indicated in the text that the information you
present in a given

sentence or paragraph has been obtained form an “external
source”. The
conventional recipe for doing that is very simple – you use
“number tags”, either
in the form of superscripts (e.g. …as was shown by J. Smith
1
, and was later
confirmed by an MIT team
2
….), or numbers in square brackets (e.g., as was
shown by J. Smith [1], and was later confirmed by an MIT team
[2]…), whatever
you prefer. At the end of the paper you put a “List of
References”, precisely
identifying the source, e.g.:
1. J. Smith, Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 180, pp. 301-327
(2006).
2. W. Brown et al., Web document,
http://mit.edu/teamwork3217/ (2010).
There are certain customary rules how to compose such a list –
e.g., the volume
number of the journal should be in bold face, and if the list of
authors is long, you
may give only the first name and add “et al.”, which is from
Latin and means

“and co-workers”. The list is essential, because it provides the
information
necessary for a reader to locate and retrieve any source you cite
in the body of the
paper. Each source you cite in the paper must appear in your
reference list;
likewise, each entry in the reference list must be cited in your
text.
y more
than a thousand
words. This is very true! Therefore, I strongly encourage you to
use figures in
your paper. It is not necessary to insert them into the text. It
will be OK if you
write, e.g.: ….as illustrated by Fig. 1, …. and then place the
figure on a separate
page at the end of paper, only labeling it as “Figure 1”. It is not
even necessary to
put the caption on the same page, you may group them all on yet
another page
titled “Figure Captions”.
OK, this is, more or less, all that comes to my mind right now.
If you need more

“guidelines”, please don’t hesitate and ask, in class, or come to
see me in my office.
An example:
I think it may be a good idea of showing you an “example
paper” written in accordance
with the guidelines outlined above. Two years ago, when I
taught the same course, I
started writing a paper about the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, with
the intention of using it as
an auxiliary material in the course. But I never finished writing
it, about 50% of the
“main body” is still missing. However, the abstract and the
introduction are “ready to
go”. So, I think that reading this material, even in its present
unfinished stage, may give
you some extra “clue” of what my expectations concerning your
papers are.
One comment – the Chernobyl paper, if I ever manage to finish
it, will be certainly much
longer than the “five pages” I mentioned above. So, please treat

the paper only as an
example illustrating the “general rules of thumb” I have outline
above, but please don’t
think that I expect to get something of comparable length from
you!
You will see that my plan was to compose a text according to
the general scheme:
Title – Abstract – Introduction – Main Body – Conclusions. I
planned to split the Main
Body into three sections, and those sections into subsections.
But you should not do that.
Sections and subsections are good, but in papers much longer
than five pages.
The Chernobyl disaster
T. M. Giebultowicz
Department of Physics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR,
USA

Abstract: The explosion of the Chernobyl reactor in April 1986
was the worst accident in the entire history
of nuclear power industry. The two major factors that
contributed to that disaster were the design of the
reactor which made it “intrinsically unsafe”, and a series of
human errors. In this paper, we explain why the
so-called “positive void coefficient” makes the Chernobyl-type
reactors unstable and difficult to control.
Also, we explain the mechanism of the “Xenon poisoning”, and
effect that played a major role in the
disaster. Details of the ill-fated experiment that triggered the
explosion, and of the irresponsible actions of
the operators in the last minutes preceding the explosion are
also discussed.
I. INTRODUCTION
The April 1986 explosion of the RBMK-1000 reactor in the
Chernobyl Nuclear Power
Plant in Soviet Union (today, the accident site is on the
territory of the Republic of
Ukraine) was the largest catastrophic event in the entire
history of the civilian nuclear

industry. It had a strong negative impact on the public
perception of using nuclear power
for generating electricity. Today, when the nuclear sector is
regaining public favor as a
“zero CO2 emission” provider of electric power, it is
important to identify all factors
that contributed to the disaster – those factors included a
generally crude technology,
faults in the reactor design, as well as ordinary human errors.
Needless to say, good
understanding of all those factors is a matter of considerable
importance – it will help us
to avoid such errors in the future, and to build new generations
of absolutely fail-safe
power reactors.
In this paper, we present a brief overview of the construction
details of the RBMK-1000
reactor, with particular emphasis on those that make this water-
cooled graphite reactor
unstable when running at low power. We explain the mechanism
of the “Xenon
poisoning” -- in the opinion of experts, this effect played a
critical role in the Chernobyl

drama. Next, we describe what happened during the hours and
the last few minutes
preceding the explosion. Finally, present a brief overview of the
consequences of the
disaster – however, the Chernobyl catastrophe had a
pronounced impact on so many
areas of life that even a brief summary of major consequences
would require a much
more extensive paper than the present one. Therefore, we do
not discuss those issues in
detail, but we only give a list of references to articles in which
the consequences of
Chernobyl disaster are thoroughly reviewed and analyzed.
II. THE REASONS OF THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT
I..1. The role of the neutron moderator
In a fission reaction a nucleus of a fissile
1
element (
235
U or
239

Pt) absorbs a neutron, and
then breaks up into two “daughter” nuclei, releasing two or
three free neutrons. These
neutrons can trigger more fission acts, and so a chain reaction
develops. However, the
neutrons released in the fission process are fast neutrons, with
energy of the order of 1
MeV. Such neutrons are weakly absorbed by the fissile nuclei;
the ones that are readily
absorbed are slow neutrons, with energies of 1 eV or even
lower. Therefore, the fast
neutrons have to be slowed down. Neutrons loose kinetic energy
if they collide with
atomic nuclei – the lighter the nuclei are, the more energy they
loose in each collision act.
Therefore, in reactors the fuel rods are surrounded by materials
with a high content of
light atoms. Such material is called the moderator.
Hydrogen, which has the lightest nucleus of all elements -- just
a single proton -- is a
very good “neutron slower”. Why? It can be clearly understood
if we recall the
experiments with elastic collision of hard spheres. Suppose that
there are two spheres

1
In nuclear engineering, a fissile material is one that is capable
of sustaining a chain reaction of nuclear
fission.
with equal masses: sphere A is at rest, and sphere B approaches
with speed V ; after the
collision, sphere B has zero speed, and sphere A flies away with
speed V. In other
words, the two spheres “exchange” their kinetic energies.
However, if the mass of sphere A is much larger that that of
sphere B, then sphere B just
“bounces back” – its kinetic energy is only slightly lower than
before the collision. The
remaining portion is acquired by sphere A, but it is such a
small portion that sphere A
hardly even moves.
Therefore, the lighter is the nucleus, the better neutron
moderator it is. Hydrogen has the
lightest of all nuclei, and there is plenty of hydrogen in ordinary
water. So, water is

widely used as a reactor moderator. It’s only disadvantage is
that when the neutrons are
slowed down to very low speeds, the collisions may no longer
be elastic – some neutrons
“stick:” to the protons. In other words, in the moderation
process some neutrons get
absorbed by the water moderator.
A better moderator is the so-called heavy water (D2O) , in
which ordinary hydrogen is
replaced by its heavier isotope, Deuterium. The mass of
Deuterium nucleus, called
deuteron, is twice the mass of a single proton – so more
collisions are needed for the
neutron to get slowed down. However, neutrons very seldom
are captured by deuterons –
the absorption in heavy water is negligibly small, making D2O a
more efficient moderator
than ordinary water. The only disadvantage of D2O is that it is
prohibitively expensive –
therefore, it is seldom used in power reactors (the Canadian
reactor CANDU is one
exception).

Carbon nuclei are even 12 times more massive than hydrogen
nuclei – on the other hand,
the neutron absorption coefficient of carbon is nearly zero,
Graphite, which is a form of
carbon, is inexpensive. Therefore, graphite is a good reactor
moderator – the very first
nuclear reactors ever built were graphite reactors.
Water, in spite of its absorption coefficient, has one
considerable advantage – it can be
also used as a coolant, i.e., the medium transferring heat out of
the reactor. Graphite is a
solid, so extra cooling system has to be used – with either water
or gas circulating in a
system of tubes acting as a coolant. So, the design of a graphite
reactor is more
complicated – and, as we will see later, there are some safety
problems with such
reactors. In conclusion, both reactor types have their advantages
and drawbacks. It is
difficult to say which type is “better” – the choice of the
moderator clearly depends on
the goals that one wants to achieve.

II.2. The RBMK-1000 reactor and its dual purpose
All power reactors in the US are strictly civilian installations,
and they all use water as
the moderator and the coolant – either through the “boiling
water reactor” (BWR) design,
or “pressurized water reactor” (PWR) design.
The Chernobyl reactor was intended to serve dual purpose: one
was generating electric
power for the civilian sector, and the other was production of
plutonium for the Soviet
nuclear weapon program. Plutonium is produced in all reactor
types: some neutrons are
captured by the “inert” component of the nuclear fuel,
238
U (natural uranium contains
only about 0.7% of the fissile isotope,
235
U -- the remaining 99.3% is
238

U ; reactor fuel
is usually enriched to contain 3-5% of
235
U). However, the
239
Pt nucleus created by the
neutron capture soon itself captures another neutron and
changes into
240
Pt, which is no
longer good for making atomic bombs. Therefore, when the
goal is to obtain the
239
Pt
isotope, the fuel rods have to be removed from the reactor after
a short time, 2 or 3 weeks
– otherwise, too much of the “product” will be contaminated
with the “bad”
240
Pt stuff.
This is hardly possible in the case of water-cooled reactors,
because they are sealed
vessels. The fuel is loaded and the reactor works for about 3
years on a single load – then

the reactor is shut down and the entire load is replaced by a new
one in an operation that
typically takes about a month. In the spent fuel rods there is
much plutonium, but almost
all of it is the “bad”
240
Pt isotope.
A plutonium-producing reactor should therefore operate in short
cycles 2-3 weeks long,
but then it is rather useless as a power source. An alternative is
to build a reactor in which
fuel rods can be removed without stopping its operation. And
only graphite reactors
make it possible, because the fuel rods are hot housed in a
pressurized sealed vessel, but
they just reside in huge block of graphite in vertical tubes that
need not to be sealed.
The cooling water in the Chernobyl reactor circulated in a
system of additional tubes
called “canals” – from that came the name of the reactor type:
RBMK in Russian is the
acronym of “Reactor Bolshoy Moshnosti Kanalnyi”, meaning

“High-Power Canal
Reactor”. The 1000 in the name is the electric power generated
in MegaWatts – the
thermal power was, of course, much higher, about 3,500 MW.
The Chernobyl reactor was a huge object, about 20 m tall (about
the same height as
Weniger Hall). A special crane was mounted at the top of the
reactor in order to extract
the long fuel rods. Altogether, the height of the reactor plus the
crane was nearly 40
meters. Common sense dictates that a power reactor and all its
paraphernalia should be
place inside a sturdy steel-reinforced concrete shell, called a
“containment structure”; all
US power reactors are housed in such structures. In the case of
a leak of radioactive
materials they stay inside the containment shell. However,
because of the size of the
Chernobyl reactor with a crane atop the cost of such structure
would be enormous.
Therefore, instead of sturdy shell, a lightweight hangar was
chosen.

II.3. The “positive void coefficient” of graphite reactors
Power reactors require intensive cooling by water circulating in
a network of tubes –
therefore, in a graphite reactor there is much water. It not only
cools the graphite block,
but also acts as an additional moderator and neutron absorber.
The “extra” moderation by
water is a “good” effect – however, the absorption may be a
potential source of troubles.
Paradoxically – if it disappears! But how can it disappear?
Well, the mechanism here is
quite simple. At high temperatures, the water may start boiling,
so that bubbles of steam
form in the cooling tubes. Such bubbles are called “voids”.
Steam has a density much
lower than liquid water, and therefore it is a much weaker
neutron absorber.
Consequently, if voids start forming, neutron flux in the reactor
increases, thus
intensifying the chain reaction. More heat is generated, further
increasing the temperature
– the water starts boiling more rapidly, more voids are formed,

and the neutron flux
increases even more, again intensifying the chain reaction, and
so on. In other words, the
voids give rise to a positive feedback – a very dangerous
condition because eventually
all water changes into steam and the entire cooling system is
knocked out, which
invariably leads to the core meltdown.
II.4. The Xenon poisoning effect
II.5. The ill-fated experiment – what was it needed for?
III. CHRONICLE OF THE EVENTS ON THE CRITICAL
NIGHT
IV. CONSEQUENCES – THE “CHERNOBYL HERITAGE”
V. SUMMARRY AND CONCLUSION
References

………………………….
………………………….
Faculty of Business Environment and Society
Module No 303MKT
MODULE TITLE: Corporate Marketing Strategy 2016
Word Length
This is a case study based assignment. Please see the word
count specific to
the route that you are taking below.
Submission Date: Wed, 2 June 2016, for all elements of the
coursework
Contribution to Total Module Mark
This coursework contributes 50% of your total module mark.
Learning Outcomes Assessed
This coursework aims to assess the following learning
outcomes:

1. Critically evaluate the contribution of strategic marketing to
the overall
strategic management of organisations and the pursuit of
sustainable
competitive advantage.
2. Apply the various strategic marketing frameworks and
concepts to
the strategic planning process.
3. Exercise considered judgement in assigning priorities and
determining
objectives in specific organisational situations.
4. Apply diagnostic and creative skills in the marketing
planning,
implementation and control processes in a variety of different
organisational situations including the service sector and not-
for-profit
organisations.
Submission information:
This assignment must be submitted via the module web by 23.55
on the
deadline: -
The following notes apply to the assignment

Please note:
1. That work submitted late (where an extension/deferral has
not been
granted) will automatically attract a result of 0%. This will
count as a
failed attempt, and may result in you failing the module overall.
You
may be eligible to resit the failed assessment(s), subject to the
University’s regulations on reassessment. The maximum module
mark
that can be awarded for resit work is 40%.
2. Extensions will be in accordance with University and Faculty
policy.
Students MUST keep copies (electronic file if done on
computer) of their
assignment.
Your assignment may be used to enable checks to be made using
anti-
plagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking websites.
Any penalties for not complying with word limits will be in
accordance with
University and Faculty policy.
Marking Scheme
A copy of the marking scheme and feedback for this coursework
is attached.
Return of Marked Work

You can expect to have marked work made available to you by 2
teaching
weeks after the submission date.
PLAGIARISM WARNING! – Assignments should not be copied
in part or in
whole from any other source, except for any marked up
quotations, that
clearly distinguish what has been quoted from your own work.
All references
used must be given, and the specific page number used should
also be given
for any direct quotations, which should be in inverted commas.
Students
found copying from the internet or other sources will get zero
marks and may
be excluded from the university.
Note:
Please make sure that your ID number and the module number
appear on the
actual coursework assignment.
Referencing
Please note that the University uses Harvard as its standard for
referencing.
A copy of this is available via the module web.
Coursework Title: Marketing Plan for a Hospitality Firm
[Contributes 50% to
total module mark]

Submission Date: Wed, 2 June 2016
Wordcount: 3500 words
You are asked to develop a Marketing Plan for one of your
preferred choice
of an existing hospitality firm within the service industry which
include
lodging, theme parks, foodservice organisations etc. The
Marketing Plan
should cover a period of three years. This should be presented
in report
format. The marketing audit part of the plan should be concise
and insightful.
As a guideline it should not exceed 1500 words (excluding
headings,
references and diagrams, but including any tables that you may
choose to
use) and should conclude with a SWOT analysis, which should
briefly and
succinctly summarise the strategically important issues for the
selected
hospitality firm. As a guideline, the remaining part of your
marketing plan
should not exceed 2000 words.
You are expected to use material in the lectures extensively and
also be
aware of and take into account of relevant information about
contemporary
events that may affect the company from newspaper articles,
company
annual reports etc.
Word Length 3500 words.

A penalty of 10% of the mark may be applied if the work is
above or below the
limits set.
Suggested Guidelines
1. Introduction
2. Situation Analysis
3. Objectives
4. Strategy
5. Segmentation, Targeting & Positioning
6. Tactics – The Marketing Mix
7. Timeline and Resources
8. Control
9. Conclusion
Assessment Criteria
Class Mark Guidelines
range
Class I 90 – In addition to that for 70 – 79% below, an
outstanding
100% answer that could hardly be better. High degree of
understanding, critical/analytic skills and original
research, where specified. Outstanding in all
respects.
80 – 89% In addition to that for 70 – 79% below, the answer
will
demonstrate an excellent level of understanding,

presence of clear description, critical/analytical skills
70 – 79% or research, as appropriate.
Answer entirely relevant to the assignment set.
Answer will demonstrate clear understanding of
theories, concepts, issues and methodology, as
appropriate. There will be evidence of wide-ranging
reading and/or research, as appropriate, beyond the
minimum recommended. Answers will be written /
presented in a clear, well-structured way with clarity
of expression.
Class II : I 65 – 69% Answer demonstrating a very good
understanding of
the requirements of the assignment. Answer will
demonstrate very good understanding of theories,
concepts, issues and methodology, as appropriate.
Answer will be mostly accurate/appropriate, with few
errors. Little, if any, irrelevant material may be
present. Reading beyond the recommended
60 – 64% minimum will be present where appropriate. Well
organised and clearly written/presented.
A good understanding, with few errors. Some
irrelevant material may be present. Well organised
and clearly written/presented. Some
reading/research beyond recommended in evidence.
Class II : 55 – 59% Answer demonstrating a good understanding
of
II relevant theories, concepts, issues and methodology.
Some reading/research beyond that recommended
may be present. Some errors may be present and
inclusion of irrelevant material. May not be
50 – 54% particularly well-structured, and/or clearly presented.
Answer demonstrating a reasonable understanding
of theories, concepts, issues and methodology.
Answer likely to show some errors of understanding.
May be significant amount of irrelevant material.
May not be well-structured and

expression/presentation may be unclear at times.
Class Mark Guidelines
range
Class III 45 - 49% An understanding demonstrated, but may be
incomplete and with some errors. Limited use of
material with limited reading/research on the topic.
Likely to be poorly structured and not well-
40 – 44% expressed/presented. Irrelevant material likely to be
present.
Basic understanding demonstrated, with some
correct description. Answer likely to be incomplete
with substantial errors or misunderstandings. Little
use of material and limited reading/research on the
topic in evidence. May be poorly structured and
poorly expressed/presented. Some material may be
irrelevant to the assignment requirements.
Marginal 35 – 39% Some relevant material will be present.
fail Understanding will be poor with little evidence of
reading/research on the topic. Fundamental errors
and misunderstanding likely to be present. Poor
structure and poor expression/presentation. Much
material may not be relevant to the assignment.
Fail 30 – 34% Inadequate answer with little relevant material
and
poor understanding of theories, concepts, issues and
methodology, as appropriate. Fundamental errors
and misunderstandings will be present. Material may
be largely irrelevant. Poorly structured and poorly
20 – 29% expressed/presented.
Clear failure to provide answer to the assignment.
Little understanding and only a vague knowledge of
the area. Serious and fundamental errors and lack of

understanding. Virtually no evidence of relevant
0 – 19% reading/research. Poorly structured and
inadequately expressed/presented.
Complete failure, virtually no understanding of
requirements of the assignment. Material may be
entirely irrelevant. Answer may be extremely short,
and in note form only. Answer may be fundamentally
wrong, or trivial. Not a serious attempt.
Mark Scheme
Structure of report 10%
Marketing Audit (including SWOT), Indicative Mark 35%
Allocation broken down as follows: -
External Analysis – 15%
Internal Analysis – 15%
SWOT – 5%
Marketing Plan. Indicative Mark Allocation broken down 45%
as follows: -
Objectives – 15%
Segmentation, Targeting & Positioning – 15%
Summary Marketing Mix – 10%
Implementation Issues and Control – 5%
Referencing, Presentation and Professionalism 10%
Throughout, marks will be awarded according to the

following scheme:
• Knowledge and Understanding of theory: 35%.
This should be appropriately referenced using
Harvard Referencing.
• Application of theory – 35%.
You should use theory to help you to to structure
your report and to underpin your analysis.
• Analysis/Interpretation/Evaluation and
Recommendations – 20%. Drawing inferences
from the application of the theory to give an
insight into the important issues for the hospitality
firm.
• Professionalism -10%. Quality of presentation
and argument.
Please Note: The allocation of marks above should serve as a
guide for the
structure of your report.

Ph313, Spring 2014 guidelines for writing the term paper .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Ph313, Spring 2014 guidelines for writing the term paper .docx

Similar to Ph313, Spring 2014 guidelines for writing the term paper .docx (20)

More from mattjtoni51554

More from mattjtoni51554 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ph313, Spring 2014 guidelines for writing the term paper .docx