| Course | GB710 Contemporary Challenges in Business |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Issue brief |
| Length | About 560 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB710 Unit 2
Fewer Graduates After AI? A Unit 2 Issue Brief for a Regional Accounting Firm's Managing Partner
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB710: Contemporary Challenges in Business
Unit 2 Issue Brief
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The firm, its people and every figure are composite and illustrative; the studies and reports cited are real.
Issue Statement
Last fall the firm cut its intake of new staff accountants from 40 to 26 after adopting AI tools for bank reconciliations, workpaper drafting and first-pass review of client documents. Nobody has tested whether the work those fourteen graduates would have done has actually disappeared, or only moved to more experienced staff.
Background
Generative AI tools capable of drafting text and summarizing documents became widely available in late 2022. Accounting software vendors began adding them to audit and tax products during 2023 and 2024, and the firm licensed two such tools in early 2024. Industry discussion since then has centered on whether entry-level work, long the training ground for future reviewers, is shrinking. At the same time, the accounting profession has faced a declining supply of graduates entering the field, which makes the intake decision consequential in both directions.
What Is Documented and What Is Not
Documented. Controlled studies show that generative AI raises productivity on writing and customer support tasks, and that the least experienced workers often gain the most (Brynjolfsson et al., 2025; Noy & Zhang, 2023). Payroll data show relative employment declines for workers aged 22 to 25 in AI-exposed occupations since late 2022, in a working paper not yet refereed.
Contested or unknown. Whether AI caused those employment declines is disputed. No study has examined mid-size accounting firms specifically, and none has measured whether first-year accounting work disappears or shifts to seniors when AI is adopted. The firm's own experience is only one year old.
Parties and Their Stakes
Partners gain margin in the short term from lower salary costs and bear the long-term risk of too few trained reviewers.
Senior associates and managers review AI drafts in place of junior staff work and may absorb tasks that first-years used to do.
Graduates lose entry positions at the firm; if many firms make the same choice, the profession's first rung narrows.
Universities and their accounting programs depend on firms' recruiting for their graduates' placement.
Clients may benefit from faster work or suffer if review quality slips.
The firm's future leadership depends on today's first-years becoming tomorrow's managers.
The savings from a smaller graduate class arrive this year; the costs, if any, arrive when today's missing first-years would have become reviewers.
Questions the Firm Can Answer Itself
Some questions do not require outside research. The firm can measure, from its own time records, how many hours seniors spent this year on tasks first-years used to do. It can compare review error rates on AI-drafted and staff-drafted workpapers. It can track how many first-years from the smaller class are on track for promotion compared with prior classes. These measures would show within a year whether the intake cut saved money or moved costs.
What the Managing Partner Is Asked to Decide
The brief does not recommend an intake number. It asks the managing partner to commission the three internal measures above before setting next year's intake, and to treat this year's cut as an experiment rather than a settled policy.
References
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
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 2 instructions
The second GB710 assignment asks for a short brief framing a current business issue for a decision-maker. State the issue in two sentences, including what has not yet been tested. Give a dated background so the reader knows how recent the issue is. Separate documented evidence from what is contested or unknown, citing sources for each. Identify every party with a stake in the answer and what each stands to gain or lose. List questions the organization could answer from its own data. Close by stating what the decision-maker is asked to do, without arguing for a final answer, since that comes later in GB710. Two to four pages, written for a practitioner reader and cited in APA 7, is typical.
How the GB 710 Unit 2 example is put together
The issue statement records the cut from 40 to 26 graduates and the untested assumption behind it. The background dates the tools' arrival in late 2022 and their adoption by the firm in early 2024. A documented section cites Brynjolfsson, Li and Raymond and Noy and Zhang on productivity gains for novices, and an unknown section notes that no study covers mid-size accounting firms. Six parties follow, from partners to the firm's future leadership, and the highlighted sentence contrasts savings now with costs later. Three internal measures the firm could collect, senior hours, review error rates and promotion pace, precede a closing request to treat the cut as an experiment.
Where the points sit in the GB710 Unit 2 rubric
Points in the GB710 issue brief go to framing rather than advocacy. A two-sentence issue statement that names what has not been tested earns credit because it gives the brief a focus. Separating documented evidence from unknowns shows discipline. Naming every party with a stake, including those without a voice in the decision, demonstrates the breadth GB710 asks for. Questions the organization can answer from its own records show practical judgment and set up later units. A closing request that stops short of a recommendation shows the writer understands the genre. Writing pitched for a busy partner and accurate APA 7 citations complete the rubric.
Common GB710 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB710 issue briefs argue for an answer, which belongs in the position paper at the end of the course. Others give a long background and a thin evidence section. A common gap is mixing documented findings with predictions, so the reader cannot tell what is known. Writers often list only the parties who make the decision, leaving out those who bear its costs. Questions the organization could answer itself are frequently missing, though they are often the most useful part. State the issue briefly, date the background, keep known and unknown apart, name every party, list internal questions and close with a request. Our writers will prepare a free custom issue brief from your materials.
Get a GB710 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Share the issue your section approved, the organization or sector you want it framed around and the Unit 2 brief instructions with your rubric. Within 24-48h a custom brief arrives that states the problem precisely, separates evidence by type and maps each invested party. The first 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 1: Discussion Board Post
- 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 2: Descriptive Summary Exercise
- GB700 Unit 2: Article Critique
- GB601 Unit 2: Research Plan
- GB600 Unit 2: Environmental Scan Memo
GB710 Unit 2 questions, answered
How long is a GB710 issue brief?
Often two to four pages, though the instructions govern. Length matters less than proportion: a short statement, a brief background, a substantial evidence section and a clear list of stakeholders. Briefs written for a practitioner audience, such as a managing partner, tend to be tighter than those written for a scholarly one, and the prompt usually specifies which.
Can the brief focus on my own employer?
Usually yes, and it often makes the later units stronger. Disclose your role, since a brief written by someone involved in the decision carries a conflict readers deserve to know about. Remove confidential figures or replace them with approximations, and say plainly in the brief that you have done so.
What separates an issue brief from a position paper?
A brief frames the problem and the evidence without arguing for an answer; a position paper takes a side and defends it. The brief's job is to make the decision clearer, including where the evidence runs out. Instructors frequently mark down briefs that slip into advocacy before the evidence section has earned it.
Where can I find a free GB710 Unit 2 sample paper?
A complete GB710 Unit 2 issue brief is on this page, framing a composite accounting firm's graduate intake decision with background, documented and unknown evidence, six parties and three internal questions.
Why does the brief not recommend an intake number?
Because its job is to frame the issue and the evidence for the decision-maker. Arguing for an answer comes in the GB710 position paper, after the evidence has been appraised and reviewed.