| Course | HD550 Health Education Communication and Advocacy |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Opposition analysis |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Health Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HD550 Unit 7
Who Loses if the Shade Goes South: A Unit 7 Opposition Analysis for Palo Seco's Bus Shelter Campaign
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HD550: Health Education Communication and Advocacy
Unit 7 Opposition Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Palo Seco, the contractor, the business district and every group are composite; the policy and advocacy sources cited are real.
Approach
Opposition in local policy usually comes from people who expect to lose something, not from people who oppose health. This analysis starts from each loss, then predicts the argument the group will make, rates its strength and drafts a response. Strength combines two judgments: the group's influence over the decision maker and the intensity of its concern. Evidence comes from public comments at past council meetings, the contractor's 2016 proposal, business district newsletters and three interviews.
The ask has two stages: a priced alternate whose inclusion the transit director settles by late April, then an award decision by the council in November. Some opponents matter at the first decision, others at the second.
Opponent 1: The Advertising Contractor
Loss. Shelters at low-ad-value stops earn little advertising revenue but cost the same to build and maintain. If the alternate is awarded, the contractor's return falls, or the city's revenue share does.
Argument. "Shelters in those locations do not pay for themselves. Adding them will reduce the city's revenue or require a city subsidy, and the current model has served Palo Seco well at no cost to taxpayers."
Strength. High. The contractor has held the contract for ten years, knows procurement staff and will bid again. Its claim about revenue is partly true.
Response. Concede the revenue point. The alternate is priced precisely so that the city can see the trade-off. The current model has served the north side well; it has not served the south and west, where 58 percent of riders board. If the price is too high, the city can decline. The contractor is welcome to propose a lower-cost way to deliver shade, such as a lighter canopy design.
Opponent 2: The Council Budget Chair
Loss. Budget flexibility and a precedent: if the city pays for shelters once, other neighborhoods may ask.
Argument. "We cannot start subsidizing bus shelters when we are cutting library hours. And once we do it for 150 stops, every council district will want its share."
Strength. Medium at the RFP stage, high at the November vote.
Response. At the RFP stage, the alternate costs nothing. In November, the response is the stop list itself, chosen by boardings and heat exposure rather than district, which makes a fair answer to "every district will want its share": each district's stops qualify on the same criteria. The campaign should also show how the alternate compares with costs the city already carries in heat response, such as cooling center hours and emergency transport.
An opponent's strongest argument is usually built on something true, and the analysis gains credibility by conceding that part openly and answering only what is left.
Opponent 3: North Corridor Business Improvement District
Loss. The district fears that if the contractor's revenue falls, maintenance and replacement of its corridor's shelters will suffer, or that new designs will change the look of its streets.
Argument. "Our shelters bring in the revenue that pays for the whole system. Don't weaken what works."
Strength. Medium. The district is well organized and has a good relationship with two council members.
Response. The base contract keeps every existing shelter and its maintenance standard. The alternate adds shelters; it does not remove any. Riders from the south and west travel north to shop and work, and steadier ridership in summer benefits the corridor's businesses.
Opponent 4: South-Side Property Owners
Loss. Some owners of homes and small businesses near stops worry that shelters will attract loitering, sleeping and litter.
Argument. "We already have people sleeping in doorways. A shelter will make it worse, and the city never cleans anything here."
Strength. Medium overall, but high locally, because their concern can make a council member from the south district hesitate.
Response. Treat this concern as real. The alternate's specification should include open-sided canopies with lighting, maintenance response times and cleaning schedules equal to those on the north side. The neighborhood councils will review the stop list, and owners can request that a particular stop be moved by a short distance.
Opponent 5: Historic District Commission
Loss. Control over street design in two historic districts.
Argument. Standard shelter designs do not fit historic streetscapes.
Strength. Low; few of the 150 stops fall inside those districts.
Response. Exclude historic district stops from the alternate, or require design review there.
Ranking the Opposition
Taken together, the contractor and the budget chair are the opponents who could defeat the ask. The contractor matters most in the drafting window, because its comments at the industry meeting can persuade staff that an alternate will deter bidders. The budget chair matters most in November. The business district and property owners matter mainly through council members, and their concerns can be reduced by design. The historic commission can be accommodated entirely.
This ranking suggests a sequence. Before March, the campaign should make sure procurement staff hear from riders and physicians as clearly as they hear from bidders. Before November, it should prepare a cost comparison and meet the south district member early, so that property owners' concerns are answered before they become the main story.
Allies Who Might Become Opponents
The tree-planting nonprofit prefers street trees to structures. If the campaign ignores trees, it may argue publicly that shelters are the wrong solution. The coalition plan addresses this by presenting trees as a complement.
What the Analysis Changes
Three changes follow. The campaign adds maintenance and design standards to the alternate's specification to meet the property owners' concern. It prepares a cost comparison for the budget chair before November. And it does not attack the contractor, whose cooperation will matter if the alternate is awarded. Effective policy advocacy depends on understanding the interests that shape a decision, not only the evidence for a solution (Brownson et al., 2009), and framing a response around an opponent's values rather than against them keeps the debate on the decision (Dorfman et al., 2005).
Limits
The analysis relies on public statements, which may understate private concerns, and on three interviews. Opponents may also arise who are not visible now, such as other bidders, whose views will not be known until the blackout ends. Kingdon (2011) notes that the politics stream can shift quickly, and an election or a budget crisis could change every rating here.
References
Brownson, R. C., Chriqui, J. F., & Stamatakis, K. A. (2009). Understanding evidence-based public health policy. American Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1576-1583. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.156224
Dorfman, L., Wallack, L., & Woodruff, K. (2005). More than a message: Framing public health advocacy to change corporate practices. Health Education & Behavior, 32(3), 320-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198105275046
Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Updated 2nd ed.). Longman.
The Purdue Global HD550 Unit 7 instructions
Unit 7 has students predict who will resist their advocacy goal of their advocacy goal and analyze their arguments and influence. Prompts may ask for each opponent's interests, likely arguments, strength and the advocate's response. Start from what each group stands to lose, since opposition usually follows a cost. Use public records such as past comments and statements. Rate strength by combining influence over the decision maker with intensity of concern. Concede true points openly. Rank opponents by when they matter. Note allies who could become opponents. Explain how the analysis changes your campaign. Six to eight pages is typical. Quote or paraphrase opponents as they would speak.
How the HD 550 Unit 7 example is put together
An approach section explains that opposition follows loss and describes the evidence used. Five opponents follow, each with a loss, an argument quoted as it might be said, a strength rating and a response. The contractor's revenue point is conceded in part. The budget chair's precedent concern is answered by common stop criteria. Businesses are told no shelter is removed. Property owners' worries are met with design and maintenance standards. The highlighted sentence explains why conceding true points builds credibility. A ranking places the contractor and budget chair first, a tree nonprofit is noted as a possible opponent, and three changes to the campaign close the analysis. Each response is written so a coalition member could say it aloud at a meeting.
Where the points sit in the HD550 Unit 7 rubric
Graders of an opposition analysis look first at whether the right opponents were found, fair statement of their arguments, realistic strength ratings, quality of responses and strategic use. Fairness earns credit when arguments are stated as opponents would make them, not as straw versions. Strength ratings score well when they distinguish influence from intensity. Responses are valued when they concede what is true and answer the rest with evidence. Strategic use rewards a ranking by timing and specific changes to the campaign. Including allies who might defect shows foresight. Tidy tables and APA citations count for less but still count. Analyses that change the campaign's plan, such as adding design standards to answer a safety concern, show the writer used the opposition rather than just describing it.
Common HD550 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students often describe opponents as simply against health, which misses their real interests. Another weakness is rating every opponent as weak. Some responses dismiss legitimate concerns, such as safety or cost, which can lose undecided decision makers. Others fail to say when each opponent matters, so the campaign cannot sequence its effort. Listing what each group stands to lose before predicting its argument usually produces a fair analysis. If your campaign faces a different set of opponents, describe them and what they have said in public, and we can help you rate them and draft responses.
Get an HD550 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Which change is your HD550 strategy pursuing, and who stands to lose from it? Include the Unit 7 prompt and rubric with your answer. Our free first custom sample, returned in 24-48h and fitted to your instructions, states each opposing case at full strength before answering it, and names the losses your plan simply accepts. 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 HD550 papers and MS in Health Education samples
- HD550 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HD550 Unit 2: Policy Process Analysis
- HD550 Unit 3: Issue Framing Exercise
- HD550 Unit 4: Policy Brief
- HD550 Unit 5: Coalition Map
- HD550 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HD550 Unit 8: Testimony or Letter
- HD550 Unit 9: Media and Timing Strategy
- HD550 Unit 10: Advocacy Strategy Document
- HD545 Unit 7: Fidelity Monitoring System
- HD535 Unit 7: Equity Analysis
- HD520 Unit 7: Participation and Governance Plan
HD550 Unit 7 questions, answered
How do I find out what opponents will argue?
Look at the record: public comments at earlier meetings, letters to the editor, statements from associations representing affected groups, and debates in other places that made a similar change. Where you have to infer an argument, say so and explain the loss it would rest on. Avoid inventing quotations and presenting them as real.
Is it acceptable to concede a point to the opposition?
Yes, and a conceded point often strengthens the analysis. Decision makers know most policies impose costs, and a campaign that admits a real loss and proposes something to reduce it appears more trustworthy than one denying the loss exists. The skill lies in choosing which concessions to offer and which positions to hold.
Should the analysis include opponents with little influence?
Include them, and rate their influence honestly. A group with little power may still carry a strong moral argument, and ignoring it can damage the campaign's credibility later on. Separating the strength of each case from the influence of the group making it lets the analysis treat both kinds of opponent sensibly.
Where can I find a free HD550 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page carries a complete Unit 7 opposition analysis naming five groups that could resist bus stop shade, with arguments and responses.
Is it wise to concede an opponent's point?
Often, yes. Conceding what is true makes the response to the rest more credible to decision makers who already know the opponent's case.