GB710 Unit 10 Scholarly Position Paper Example

Course	GB710 Contemporary Challenges in Business
Unit	Unit 10
Paper type	Scholarly position paper
Length	About 1,130 words, 7 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	MBA
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for GB710 Unit 10

Redesign Before You Shrink: A Unit 10 Scholarly Position Paper on Generative AI and Graduate Intake

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

GB710: Contemporary Challenges in Business

Unit 10 Scholarly Position Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The candidate is composite and illustrative; the studies, theories and sources cited are real.

What this part is doingStating the thesis and the plan of the paper in the lead shows the paper commits before it argues.

The Claim

Mid-size accounting firms should redesign first-year work around generative AI before they reduce graduate intake. Current evidence does not show that the work first-year staff do has disappeared, only that some of its tasks can now be performed by software. Internal labor market theory predicts that cutting intake will create a shortage of experienced reviewers several years later, a cost that falls hardest on firms that depend on promoting their own staff. Until better evidence arrives, a firm that cuts should be the one asked to justify its choice.

Argument One: AI Helps Novices Most

Wherever researchers have measured AI help on a defined task with a credible comparison group, beginners have gained more than veterans. Among customer support agents, the least experienced improved productivity by roughly a third with AI assistance, while the most experienced gained little (Brynjolfsson, Li, & Raymond, 2025). Among professionals writing business documents, those with weaker initial skills gained the most in speed and quality (Noy & Zhang, 2023). If the same pattern holds in accounting, AI makes first-year staff more valuable, not less, because it lets them perform closer to experienced staff sooner. A firm that cuts intake forgoes that gain.

Argument Two: Internal Labor Markets Predict a Deferred Shortage

Doeringer and Piore (1971) described internal labor markets in which firms fill most positions above the entry level by promotion, bringing people in at the lowest rung and teaching them through the work of each step. Mid-size accounting firms fit this description closely: their seniors and managers are mostly people who started there as first-years. Task-based theory (Autor et al., 2003) explains how AI could disrupt this system. If AI performs the routine tasks that occupy the bottom rung, firms may stop hiring at the port of entry. The result would not appear at once. It would appear when the missing cohorts should have become seniors and managers, and firms that cannot hire experienced staff from outside at competitive salaries would face shortages of reviewers.

A firm that cuts graduates today is not saving their salaries; it is borrowing against the managers they would have become.

Argument Three: The Displacement Evidence Is Not Firm-Level

The evidence most often cited for cutting intake, the falling share of jobs held by the youngest workers in exposed occupations (Brynjolfsson, Chandar, & Chen, 2025), describes what has happened across occupations, not what individual firms should do. It cannot show whether firms that cut hiring are better off than firms that did not. The comparative cases in Unit 5 suggest that a firm cutting intake can see seniors absorb first-year work and leave, while a similar firm redesigning first-year work can avoid that strain. Two cases cannot prove a pattern, but they show the occupational trend does not by itself justify any single firm's decision.

What this part is doingSeparating occupation-level trends from firm-level decisions shows the paper reads its evidence at the level it was collected.

Counterarguments at Full Strength

The cost pressure is real. Accounting firms face rising salaries, fee pressure from clients and competition from larger firms adopting AI faster. A firm that keeps its intake while competitors cut may carry higher costs for several years. This is a serious objection. The response is that the paper does not argue against any change, only for redesign before reduction. A firm can redesign first-year work, measure the results for a year or two and then reduce intake if the work has truly shrunk, at modest cost compared with the risk of a shortage later.

The work may really be gone. If AI performs reconciliation, drafting and document review well enough, there may simply be less for first-years to do. The response is that the evidence so far measures tasks, not jobs. Redesign tests whether the remaining work, reviewing AI output, handling exceptions and meeting clients, is enough to occupy and train first-years. If it is not, the firm will learn that quickly.

Firms can hire experienced staff later. If a shortage arises, firms can recruit seniors from other firms. The response is that every firm making the same choice draws on the same shrinking pool. Lateral hiring becomes more expensive precisely when the shortage is general, and mid-size firms are at a disadvantage against the largest firms in that competition.

How the Position Fits the Conversation

The position places the candidate in conversation with three camps identified in Unit 8. It accepts the augmentation camp's finding that AI helps novices on tasks, and extends it by asking what firms do with that help. It accepts the displacement camp's finding that early-career employment has fallen in exposed occupations, and narrows it by asking whether individual firms benefit from contributing to that decline. And it accepts the small-effects camp's caution that dramatic claims have outrun evidence, applying that caution to claims about cutting intake as much as to claims about AI's power. The contribution is to join these findings to internal labor market theory, which none of the three camps has used.

What this part is doingLocating the position among the camps it draws on shows the claim engages the literature rather than standing apart from it.

What Would Prove the Position Wrong

Three findings would weaken or refute the position. If firms that cut intake after adopting AI showed no increase in senior hours on review tasks and no rise in senior turnover over two to three years, the deferred-cost argument would lose force. If first-year staff at firms that redesigned their work developed no faster than those at firms that cut intake, the novice-advantage argument would not transfer to accounting. And if lateral hiring of seniors remained easy and affordable five years after widespread intake cuts, the shortage would not have materialized. The research questions set out in Unit 9 are designed to test the first two.

Recommendations to Managing Partners

Managing partners of mid-size firms considering intake cuts should first redesign first-year work in at least one office, assigning first-years to review AI output under supervision and to client contact earlier. They should measure senior hours on review tasks, senior turnover and first-year development for at least a year. And they should treat any intake reduction as reversible, keeping recruiting relationships with universities active so that intake can rise again if the evidence calls for it.

Limits of the Position

The position rests on evidence from adjacent settings, theory and two composite cases. It may not hold for firms whose structures differ, such as those that rely heavily on outsourcing or offshore staff, or for a future in which AI tools perform review and judgment as well as routine tasks. It is a claim about what the evidence currently supports, and it should change as better evidence arrives.

References

Autor, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279-1333. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355303322552801

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.

Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2025). Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889-942. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjae044

Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. J. (1971). Internal labor markets and manpower analysis. Heath.

Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654), 187-192. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586

Reading the GB 710 Unit 10 instructions

The final GB710 assignment asks for a scholarly position paper arguing one claim about your issue. State the claim in the first paragraph. Support it with a small number of arguments, each grounded in specific evidence or theory from your reading. Present the strongest counterarguments at full strength and answer each. Show how your position fits the conversation in the literature. State what findings would prove your position wrong. Address recommendations to one audience. Close with the limits of the position. A scholarly position paper aims to show a claim is defensible given the evidence, not to persuade at any cost. Twelve pages with APA 7 citations is a typical GB710 length.

How this GB710 Unit 10 example is built

The paper states its claim and where the burden of proof should lie. Argument one draws on the customer support and business writing studies that found beginners gaining most. Argument two applies Doeringer and Piore's internal labor markets and Autor, Levy and Murnane's task framework, and the highlighted sentence describes intake cuts as borrowing against future managers. Argument three shows why the 2025 payroll evidence describes occupations, not individual firms. Three counterarguments are answered. A section places the position among the camps from Unit 8. Three falsifying findings, recommendations to managing partners and the position's limits close the paper.

GB710 Unit 10 rubric: what earns full points

Points in the closing GB710 position paper go to a defensible claim fairly argued. A claim stated in the first paragraph earns credit for clarity. Arguments grounded in specific studies and theory, rather than general assertion, carry heavy weight. Counterarguments presented at full strength, with direct answers, demonstrate intellectual honesty and are often decisive for the grade. Placing the position in the literature's conversation shows scholarly maturity. Naming findings that would prove the claim wrong marks it as scholarly rather than rhetorical. Recommendations addressed to one audience and stated limits complete the argument, along with APA 7 citations. GB710 instructors also check that the paper's claim is consistent with the evidence appraised in Unit 3, since a position that outruns the course's own appraisal undermines itself.

GB710 Unit 10 help: mistakes that cost points

Many GB710 position papers read as persuasive essays, selecting only supportive evidence and dismissing objections in a sentence. Others state the claim so cautiously that there is nothing to defend. Writers often rebut the easy objections and skip the one a skeptical partner would raise first. Writers rarely name what would prove them wrong. Recommendations are often addressed to everyone and therefore to no one. Limits are frequently left out. State your claim first, support it with specific evidence, present counterarguments at their strongest, place yourself in the literature, name falsifying findings, address one audience and state your limits. Send your issue and evidence for a free custom GB710 position paper.

Get a GB710 Unit 10 example written to your instructions

Send the issue and the position you lean toward, sources gathered in earlier units, and the Unit 10 instructions with your rubric. One bounded claim, counterarguments at full strength and a limits section naming what would prove it wrong arrive together in a custom position paper within 24-48h. A first sample is supplied 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 10 questions, answered

How is a GB710 position paper different from a persuasive essay?

A persuasive essay aims to convince; a scholarly position paper aims to show that a claim is defensible given the evidence, including its limits. It engages the strongest counterarguments, concedes ground where evidence requires, and states what would change the position. That candor is what instructors look for and what marks the work as doctoral.

Can the position change from what earlier units suggested?

Yes, and a change supported by accumulated reading can strengthen the paper. If the integrative review or appraisal shifted your view, say so and explain why. Consistency with earlier units matters less than consistency between the evidence you present and the claim you make in this paper. Instructors generally read a reasoned change as evidence of learning across the term.

How many counterarguments should a position paper address?

Two or three strong ones serve better than a longer list of weak ones. Choose the objections a knowledgeable critic would actually raise, present them fairly and answer each with evidence. Conceding part of one is acceptable and often persuasive, provided the paper explains what the position still claims afterward.

Where can I find a free GB710 Unit 10 sample paper?

The complete GB710 Unit 10 scholarly position paper on this page argues that mid-size accounting firms should redesign first-year work before cutting graduate intake, with three arguments, three counterarguments and falsifying findings.

Why should the burden of proof rest on cutting intake?

Because the costs of a thinner entry class arrive years later and are hard to reverse, while redesigning first-year work can be tested in a year and abandoned if the work has truly gone.