Based on your practice exam question results from Week 2, identify strengths and areas of opportunity and create a tailored study plan to use throughout this course to help you prepare for the national certification exam. This will serve as an action plan to help you track your goals, tasks, and progress. You will revisit and update your study plan in NRNP 6675, and you may continue to refine and use it until you take the exam.
• Reflect on your practice exam question results from Week 2. Identify content-area strengths and opportunities for improvement.
• Also reflect on your overall test taking. Was the length of time allotted comfortable, or did you run out of time? Did a particular question format prove difficult?
• Based on your practice test question results, and considering the national certification exam, summarize your strengths and opportunities for improvement. Note: Your grade for this Assignment will not be derived from your test results but from your self-reflection and study plan.
• Create a study plan for this quarter to prepare for the certification exam, including three or four SMART goals and the tasks you need to complete to accomplish each goal. Include a timetable for accomplishing them and a description of how you will measure your progress.
• Describe resources you would use to accomplish your goals and tasks, such as ways to participate in a study group or review course, mnemonics and other mental strategies, and print or online resources you could use to study
Sample Solution
Sample Solution
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.
Overall, jus in bello suggests in wars, harm can only be used against combatants, never against the innocent. But in the end, the aim is to establish peace and security within the commonwealth. As Vittola’s conclusion: ‘the pursuit of justice for which he fights and the defence of his homeland’ is what nations should be fighting for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Thus, although today’s world has developed, we can see not much different from the modernist accounts on warfare and the traditionists, giving another section of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, we can still conclude that there cannot be one definitive theory of the just war theory because of its normativity.
