To: Dr. Stice
From: Marie Gotti
Date: 10/12/2015
When I Googled “bad proposal examples” I found an example at this address: https://submitalink.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/example-of-a-proposal-anarqx1m.jpg. My initial response to this proposal was that I could not identify the creator and readers of this proposal. This means I do not know who the audience is for this proposal, so I cannot infer if the language used in this proposal is up to par for the target audience. The proposed solution in this proposal consists of three tests, with one test being recommended in the end. I would suggest including more information about these tests, and whether or not there are other tests that will be left out for consideration and why this would be. As I have stated earlier, I do not know who the target audience is, so details about these tests may not be necessary.
The writer states that cost, efficiency, reliability, specificity, and sensitivity will be evaluated when determining the best procedure, however, the writer fails to outline his use of these variables past just mentioning them. Cost is very important, however, is cost held at the same level as efficiency? The writer should evaluate the importance of each variable in his proposal and outline the process that she/he will use in determining the best test. The proposal seems very vague in this department, especially when it is considering different tests for the early detection of prostate cancer. Some more information concerning the writer’s methodology would be very helpful in strengthening the proposal.
The information about the writer’s qualifications could use some work as well. Again, I do not know who the target audience is, but from reading the qualifications I would think they would most likely be under qualified. The writer needs to expand on how his personal experiences with his grandfather makes him qualified to work on this project. In addition, the writer should expand on the courses taken and how they relate to the project being proposed. The conclusion could also use some more work, as the first paragraph appears to be a rehash of information that should have been presented in the introduction.
-Marie Gotti