(p. 18). Failure to understand the controversy or issue and the conclusion will lead to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the attempted communication. The conclusion should be identified before the issue. Finding the conclusion will make identifying the issue easier. The conclusion should be verified by checking to see what it is not. For example, Browne (2012) states that a conclusion is not “a statistic, an example, a definition, background information, or other evidence” (p. 27). The location of the conclusion can also be checked. In this case the conclusion is at the beginning of the document which is a viable position. In the Penn-Mart document the conclusion is identified by the following statement “Therefore, we should require preventative care of everyone at Penn-Mart”.
Determining the identity of the particular issue for a work will help generate a better understanding of the issue. The identity of the issue can be either descriptive or prescriptive. Browne (2012) states “descriptive issues are those that raise questions about the accuracy of descriptions of the past, present, or future” (p. 19). Prescriptive issues are “those that raise questions about what we should do or what is right or wrong, good or bad” (Browne, 2012, p. 20). In the case of the Penn-Mart recommendation document the issue is prescriptive. The issue can be derived from the conclusion. In the case of the Penn-Mart document the phrase “should be” can provide an assumption that the issue is should preventative care be provided for everyone at Penn-Mart? This is an issue that can be morally and ethically challenged or perceived as good or bad.