| Course | GB710 Contemporary Challenges in Business |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion board post |
| Length | About 480 words, 2 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 discussion post |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB710 Unit 1
Graduates Cannot Get Hired Because AI Does Their Work: A Unit 1 Discussion Post Sorting a Repeated Claim
GB710 · Unit 1 Discussion Post
Posted by [Student Name]
The candidate and the firm are composite and illustrative; the studies and reports cited are real.
Initial Post
The sentence I keep reading is "graduates cannot get hired because AI now does their work." My own firm cut its fall intake of new staff accountants this year, and partners used a version of that sentence to explain it. I want to sort the claim into three bins: what is documented, what is contested and what is merely asserted.
Documented. A 2025 working paper using records from a large payroll processor (Brynjolfsson et al., 2025) reports that employment of workers aged 22 to 25 in the occupations most exposed to generative AI fell relative to less exposed occupations and older workers from late 2022 onward. That is a measured pattern in administrative data, which is stronger evidence than any survey. Its limits matter: it is a working paper, not yet refereed, and it describes associations across occupations, not hiring decisions inside firms.
Contested. Whether AI caused that decline is disputed. The same period saw rising interest rates and a correction after heavy tech hiring in 2021 and 2022, both of which hit young workers first. A study of Danish workers by Humlum and Vestergaard (2025) found almost no effect of AI chatbot adoption on earnings or hours through 2024. The rival explanation, an ordinary downturn for new entrants, has not been ruled out.
Asserted. Most of the trade articles I read cite executives or vendors of AI tools, whose statements are predictions or sales claims. A software vendor that says its product replaces junior staff has an interest in that being believed. The World Economic Forum's employer survey records what employers expect to do, not what they have done (World Economic Forum, 2025).
A claim can be partly documented, partly disputed and partly salesmanship at the same time, and a single sentence hides all three.
Sorted this way, the sentence shrinks to something narrower: early-career employment has fallen in AI-exposed occupations, and the cause is still being argued. That is a researchable question, not a settled fact.
My question for classmates: which claim in your own field is repeated so often that nobody checks where it came from?
Reply to Marcus
Marcus, you cited a figure that 40 percent of entry-level tasks in banking will disappear by 2030. I tried sorting it the same way. It comes from a consultancy projection, which belongs in my asserted bin until we see how the tasks were defined and whether anyone measured actual job changes. Do you know whether the report counted tasks that could be automated or tasks that firms have actually stopped assigning to people? Those are very different numbers.
References
Brynjolfsson, E., Chandar, B., & Chen, R. (2025). Canaries in the coal mine? Six facts about the recent employment effects of artificial intelligence [Working paper]. Stanford Digital Economy Lab.
Humlum, A., & Vestergaard, E. (2025). Large language models, small labor market effects (NBER Working Paper No. 33777). National Bureau of Economic Research.
World Economic Forum. (2025). The future of jobs report 2025.
Reading the GB 710 Unit 1 instructions
The first GB710 discussion asks you to take one widely repeated claim about a current business issue and sort what supports it. Quote the claim as it circulates and say where you met it. Then divide the evidence into what is documented, by research or records; what is contested, with the rival explanation named; and what is asserted, by parties with an interest in the answer. Label working papers and surveys for what they are. Say what remains once the claim is sorted. Close by asking classmates about a claim in their own field. In the GB710 reply, sort a classmate's figure with the same three bins. Posts near 450 words and replies near 150, with three sources in APA 7, suit most sections.
How the GB 710 Unit 1 example is put together
The post quotes the circulating sentence and explains why it matters to the candidate's firm, which cut its intake. The documented bin cites the payroll-based working paper by Brynjolfsson, Chandar and Chen and states its limits. The contested bin names rising interest rates and the tech hiring correction as rivals and cites Humlum and Vestergaard's Danish results. The asserted bin covers vendors, executives and the World Economic Forum's survey of expectations. The highlighted sentence says one claim can hold all three kinds of evidence. A narrower version of the claim follows, then a question for classmates, and the reply sorts a consultancy projection about banking tasks.
GB710 Unit 1 rubric: what earns full points
GB710 instructors reward a post that sorts evidence by kind. Quoting the claim as it circulates gives the instructor something exact to test. Each bin earns credit when it holds a specific source labeled correctly, a refereed study, a working paper, a survey of intentions or a vendor statement. Naming the rival explanation in the contested bin shows the writer understands why a pattern is not yet a cause. Identifying the interest behind asserted claims demonstrates critical reading. A narrower restatement of the claim shows judgment. The GB710 reply is judged on whether it sorts a classmate's figure rather than echoing it, and APA 7 references with working paper series identified complete the grade.
Common GB710 Unit 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB710 Unit 1 posts argue for or against a popular claim instead of sorting the evidence behind it. Others treat a consultancy projection and a payroll study as equal because both carry numbers. A frequent slip is citing a working paper as if it were refereed, or citing a survey of what employers expect as if it reported what they did. Writers often omit the rival explanation, leaving a correlation dressed as a cause. Replies commonly agree without testing anything. Quote the claim exactly, put each source in the bin its design earns, name the rival, identify who benefits from the assertion and restate the claim at the strength the evidence allows. Request a free custom post on your own issue through this page.
Get a GB710 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Choose the claim you want examined, or the approved issue, and share it with the Unit 1 board instructions and rubric. Documented, contested and asserted evidence is then separated in a custom post, every source dated, delivered in 24-48h and sized to the length your instructor sets. The first custom sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB710 papers and MBA samples
- GB710 Unit 2: Issue Brief
- GB710 Unit 3: Evidence Quality Appraisal
- GB710 Unit 4: Historical Parallel Analysis
- GB710 Unit 5: Comparative Case Study
- GB710 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB710 Unit 7: Stakeholder Impact Assessment
- GB710 Unit 8: Integrative Literature Review
- GB710 Unit 9: Research Problem Statement
- GB710 Unit 10: Scholarly Position Paper
- GB701 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB700 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB601 Unit 1: Problem Statement and Scope
- GB600 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
GB710 Unit 1 questions, answered
Can a GB710 post cite working papers?
Yes, and on fast-moving topics it often must, since refereed studies lag events by years. Label each one as a working paper, give its date and series, and check whether a published version has since appeared. Treat its findings as provisional, which is how doctoral readers will treat them regardless of how the post frames them.
Which issues suit the Unit 1 post?
Issues where claims outrun evidence work best, because the sorting exercise then has material. Generative AI in hiring, supply chain reshoring and algorithmic pricing are common choices. An issue with a narrow actor, such as mid-size accounting firms rather than business in general, makes the later units far easier to write.
How many sources does the initial post need?
The instructions decide, and two or three is typical at doctoral level. What matters is that at least one source represents each bin: a study for the documented claim, scholarly disagreement for the contested one and a primary statement for the asserted one. Three sources chosen that way outweigh eight that all say the same thing.
Where can I find a free GB710 Unit 1 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB710 Unit 1 discussion post that sorts a repeated claim about AI and graduate hiring into documented, contested and asserted evidence, with a reply that sorts a classmate's figure.
Is a working paper weaker than a journal article?
Not necessarily in quality, but it has not yet passed peer review and may change. On fast-moving topics it is often the best evidence available; cite it with its series and date and say it is unreviewed.