代写COMM1100 Business Decision Making – Term 1 2024 Final Exam Part 1代做Python编程

COMM1100 Business Decision Making - Term 1 2024

Final Exam Part 1: Case Study Analysis

You will apply the tools and concepts you have learned and developed throughout the term.

30% of your final grade.

Total marks available: 100

The case study resources are released at 9:00am (AEST) Wednesday, 1 May.

The exam questions will be released at 9:00am (AEST) on Thursday, 2 May.

You must submit your answers by 10:45am (AEST) on Thursday, 2 May. Thus, you have 90 minutes to complete writing and another 15 minutes to upload the documents.

(Part 2 of the exam will take place from 11:00-11:45am (AEST) on Thursday, 2 May.)

Expected Length: Approximately 1,050 words (+/-10%) in total, excluding references and intext

citation. Failure to comply with the overall word limit will reduce your score by one mark for exceeding the limit by more than 10%, by two marks for exceeding it by 11-20% and by 3 marks for exceeding it  by 21% or more.

Format: No cover page. Please do not copy the questions into your response. Your submission must be in either PDF or Word format.

*If you use Mac Books, we recommend strongly that you submit a word document.

No resubmissions are allowed. To repeat: Resubmissions are not allowed! Please take note!

Referencing style:Harvard Referencing - The 'in-text' system.How to cite electronic sources& Harvard referencing for broadcast material.

You are expected to engage in research in addition to the resources we have provided and to provide in-text citations and a reference list.

*Given you have limited time, you may just add the links in the reference list without strictly following the Harvard referencing style, but we expect proper intext citations within the answer.

All of the resources and submission links you need to complete and submit your assessment are available in Moodle under the ‘Final Exam’ tab.

•   Please complete The use of Generative AI: Final Exam Questionnairebefore submitting your answers via the relevant Turnitin link. The final exam answers submission link will   be accessible only after you have completed the questionnaire.

•   If you have answered that you used generative AI software at any stage of the

planning, research, and writing of your assessment, you must submit a separate

document via Submission Link: Documents explaining the use of AI.Failure to do so may result in an Academic Misconduct investigation. See below for more

information.

•   Use the Final Exam Part 1: Answerslink to upload your case study analysis (answers).

→  Please save your file as: [Your zid] [Your name] Final Exam Part 1

 Policy on the use of generative AI

Use of generative AI software is allowed (but not required) for this part of the final exam. Any output of generative AI software that is used within your assessment must be attributed with full referencing.

If you choose to use generative AI software at any stage of the planning, research , and writing of your assessment, you must submit a separate document, which contains the following:

1.  A short description of how you used generative AI software for this assessment. This

should include a description of what prompts/inputs you used (e.g., questions, text from your original first draft, etc.) and how you incorporated the output into your final

submission.

2.  A complete transcript. of your interactions with all generative AI tools that you used. This should include the full “conversation” between you and the software from beginning to

end. If you have used translation software, this should include your original non-English draft.

Please submit the document via Submission Link: Documents explaining the use of AI.

This document will not be marked. It serves two purposes. First, it is a reflective exercise for you to consider whether you have used generative AI tools in an appropriate and effective

way. Second, it will be a reference that your marker can consult for additional context when

evaluating your submission against the marking criteria – for example, if there are any

questions regarding your attribution of AI tools, your referencing of source material, or how you have applied course concepts.

You will be assessed based on the content of the primary document (i.e., the answers

to the questions pertaining to this case study) that you submit. The outputs of AI tools

are not always accurate, appropriate, or properly referenced. By using generative AI software,  you are assuming the responsibility of moderating and critically evaluating the outputs from the AI tools you use before submitting your assessment. Including inaccurate, inappropriate, or

falsely/incorrectly referenced content may result in a failing grade based on the marking rubric.

If the outputs of generative AI software are not appropriately attributed in your submission,

your marker will determine whether the omission is significant. If so, you may be asked to

explain your understanding of your submission, and/or you may be referred to UNSW Conduct & Integrity Office for investigation for academic misconduct and possible penalties.

Referencing

Guidelines for referencing AI software have not yet been officially incorporated into Harvard referencing style. For this course, use the following interim guidelines for RMIT’s Harvard

style, which are based on the current APA guidelines for referencing AI-generated content:

For in-text citations, use the creator of the AI tool as the author (i.e., OpenAI), and the year of the version of the AI model that you have used.

Example 1: OpenAI (2023) Example 2: Google (2023)

For refence list entries follow the following format:

https://chat.openai.com/share/81f2e81f-f137-41b6-9881-39af1672ae3c

Policy on late and incorrect submissions.

According to the UNSW Assessment Implementation procedures, late submission of an online

examination cannot be accepted. It is the student’s responsibility to submit the online   examination within the allotted timeframe. (by 10:45am), including the uploading of any additional files.

It is your responsibility to check your exam submission. The COMM1100 team will not, under any circumstance, accept the correct submission after the deadline nor contact you if you have submitted the wrong file.

Instructions for graphical illustrations

If you intend to draw diagrams, you could follow the suggested method listed below.

•   Draw the graph digitally on your word document, right next to your answer. (This will be part of your word count)

•   We accept graphs only for Q1 (the econ questions). However, it is not necessary to have a graph to answer Q1. You may use a graph if you wish to do so.

•   Graphs and/or tables in image format are not allowed. If graphs or tables are included as an image, the markers will not be considering the content as a part of the answer.

Case study background and information.

The cost-of-living crisis has been on many (politicians’) minds for a couple of years now. There is a lot of public posturing going on, so it is important to understand some basic economics,

legal, and corporate responsibility facts. That is what this case study is about.

Coles and Woolworths have been a major target of politicians and their support casts. This

“duopoly” of supermarket chains faces/has faced Senate scrutiny amid claims it was “price

gouging” and “ profiteering” in questionable ways from its market power (Barrett 2023, The

Guardian; Paul 2024, The Conversation), they were jointly awarded the Shonky Award by

consumer advocates Choice (Touma 2024, The Guardian), and former ACCC head Prof Allan Fels AO headed an ACTU-funded inquiry that found that these market giants are ripping off

Australians (Fels 2024). The ACCC has now launched an inquiry (ACCC, 2024-25). Dumas &  Rachwani (2024, The Guardian), as has the CEOs of Coles and Woolworths, have pointed to  alternatives that consumers have. Kelly (2024, The Conversation) has detailed how Coles and Woolworths use questionable high-tech surveillance and control to maximize their profits and   target and exploit their customers.

While much of the focus has been on the ways Coles and Woolworths have squeezed their

customers, there has also been considerable critique about the ways the supermarket chains   have dealt with their suppliers (e.g., Paul 2024, The Conversation; Chan 2024, The Guardian;  Barrett 2024, The Guardian; Grigg et al. 2024, ABC News) and workforce for that matter (Kelly 2024, The Conversation).