Near the end of a foundations course, the pieces built across the session usually get assembled: a paper that takes a position on a real professional issue and defends it with scholarly sources, in clean APA, in the register the course has been teaching since its first week. It is the closest thing this course has to a dress rehearsal for the rest of the program. Your section may print this as NR 300A or NR300A; it is the same course. Chamberlain publishes no syllabi outside Canvas. The placement here is our teaching judgment from the course's catalog arc; your section's rubric decides what your week actually asks.
Identify what a position paper stage demands
Every clinic carries issues that nurses argue about in the break room and never on paper. Whether a family practice should keep same-day pediatric sick slots open at the cost of scheduled physicals. Whether standing orders should let nurses start routine immunization catch-ups without a provider in the room. Whether text-message reminders belong in a practice serving families who change numbers often. A position paper stage asks you to take one issue of this size, one with defensible sides, and move it from break-room opinion to sourced argument.
The graded skeleton is claim, support, counterargument, response. A claim is a sentence someone informed could dispute; a paper defending "patient safety matters" has selected a claim no one disputes and forfeited the argument rows at the outset. Support means published evidence doing the load-bearing work, with your own practice observations serving as illustration. Counterargument means presenting the strongest opposing view fairly enough that its holders would recognize it, and response means saying precisely why your weighing still holds. Papers that skip the opposing view do not read as confident; they read as unaware.
This is also, quietly, a cumulative mechanics exam. The formatting taught early, the source discipline taught mid-course, and the register held throughout are all silently re-scored here, and a strong argument in sloppy APA leaks points from rows the writer stopped watching. Budget a full editing pass for the machinery alone.
Construct the argument, step by step
Six moves from break-room opinion to defensible paper.
-
Choose an issue sized for the word count
Staffing across American healthcare is a book; whether your practice's after-hours nurse line reduces avoidable urgent care visits for young families is a paper. Pick something you can genuinely argue, and ideally something you have watched from inside a clinic.
-
Write the claim sentence before anything else
One sentence, disputable, specific: who should do what, and why it matters. Tape it above your screen. Every paragraph either supports it, tests it, or gets deleted.
-
Gather sources for both sides deliberately
Search for evidence that supports your position and evidence that complicates it, and keep the best of each. A one-sided source list produces a paper that collapses at its counterargument section for lack of material.
-
Draft the counterargument first, at full strength
Writing the opposing paragraph before your own forces honesty and shows you where your claim needs a boundary. The strongest position papers read as if the writer could have argued either side and chose.
-
Build each support paragraph as claim, evidence, link
Open with the point, carry it with a cited finding, close with the sentence connecting it back to your claim. The closing link is the sentence students most often omit, and it is the one that makes a paragraph argumentative rather than informative.
-
End on implication, not summary
The final paragraph answers "so what": what a practice, a nurse or a policy should do differently if your argument holds. Restating your points in reverse order is an outline, not an ending.
Assemble the paper and its word budget
Our frame for a position paper, sized for roughly 900 to 1,200 words. It is our own outline rather than anything the university issues, and your week's rubric outranks it wherever they disagree.
| Section | What belongs in it | Word target |
|---|---|---|
| Issue and claim | The issue framed in two or three sentences, then your disputable claim stated plainly, with a map of the paper. | 110 to 150 |
| Background the reader needs | Only the context required to understand the dispute, sourced, with practice color kept to a clause or two. | 140 to 180 |
| Support paragraph one | Your strongest reason, built claim-evidence-link with a cited finding at its center. | 150 to 190 |
| Support paragraph two | A second, distinct reason; a different kind of evidence than the first if possible. | 150 to 190 |
| Counterargument and response | The opposing view at recognizable strength, then exactly where and why your weighing differs. | 180 to 230 |
| Implication close | What follows for practice or policy if your argument holds, in checkable terms. | 90 to 120 |
Deploy sources like an advocate who fights fair
Let published evidence carry the claims, and your clinic carry the color. The argument rows are scored on what you can support, and support means findings a reader can check. A scene from your pediatric mornings can open a paragraph; a citation has to close it.
Represent sources accurately even when trimming would help you. If a study you cite found a modest effect with caveats, say modest and keep the caveat. Papers get flagged when a checked source turns out gentler than the sentence citing it, and instructors do check.
Cite the opposition's evidence too. A counterargument paragraph with its own citation signals that you did the reading on both sides, and it is the single clearest marker separating top papers from middle ones in this territory.
Keep numbers attached to their denominators and years. A figure about missed well-child visits means nothing without how many families, where, and when. Carry base and date in the sentence, every time, exactly as the earlier stages drilled.
Avoid the five mistakes of this week's territory
- The undisputable claim. Arguing for something no informed person opposes leaves the argument rows with nothing to score.
- The missing counterargument. Skipping the opposing view is read as not knowing it exists, and it usually costs more than any other single omission here.
- The strawman. Presenting the opposition weakly so it falls easily is visible to any grader who knows the issue, and they chose the assignment because they do.
- Evidence stacked without links. Findings piled paragraph after paragraph, never tied back to the claim, produce a report wearing an argument's title.
- Mechanics abandoned at the finish. The cumulative APA, register and citation habits are silently re-scored in this paper, and week-seven fatigue is when they slip.
Run this list before you submit
- Your claim is one sentence an informed reader could dispute
- Each support paragraph closes with a link back to the claim
- The counterargument would be recognized as fair by someone who holds it
- Both sides of the issue carry citations
- Every number travels with its base and its year
- A full pass was spent on APA and register alone
Building the position paper for NR-300A?
Send the prompt and the rubric out of Canvas. A premium original draft comes back in 24 to 48 hours argued clean with both sides sourced, and revisions run until the grade lands.