| Course | BUS 225 Critical Business Skills for Success |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | undergraduate assignment applying critical thinking to define a business problem |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Southern New Hampshire University |
| Program | BS Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUS 225 Module 2
Defining the Callback Problem
[Student Name]
Southern New Hampshire University
BUS 225: Critical Business Skills for Success
Module Two Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.
Defining the Callback Problem
Introduction
The owner of the company has a clear explanation for the rise in callbacks: technicians have become careless. He wants a new rule that any technician with more than three callbacks a month loses part of his bonus. Before accepting that explanation or that fix, this paper applies critical thinking to the problem. It defines the symptom precisely, examines the assumptions in the owner's explanation, identifies other possible causes, organizes them, writes a problem statement and plans how evidence will decide among the causes.
The Symptom
A callback occurs when a customer reports pests within thirty days of a scheduled treatment and a technician returns at no charge. Over the twelve months to August 2025, callbacks rose from 6 percent of scheduled visits in the prior year to 11 percent, an increase of about 1,300 visits. Each costs the company about $48 in technician time and materials, so the rise costs about $62,000 a year directly. The office also reports that customers who have two callbacks in a year are much more likely to cancel, and annual cancellations rose from 14 to 19 percent over the same period.
Examining the Owner's Assumption
The owner's explanation assumes that technicians' effort has fallen, that effort is the main thing that determines whether a treatment works and that a penalty would restore it. Paul and Elder (2019) describe assumptions as beliefs we take for granted, and recommend making them explicit so they can be checked. Each of these can be checked. If technicians had become careless, callbacks should have risen across experienced and new technicians alike and across all service types. If something else changed, such as the product or the routes, the pattern would look different. The owner's explanation may be right, but it should be tested rather than assumed, and a penalty based on a wrong cause would harm morale without fixing anything.
Candidate Causes
Interviews with two technicians, the office manager and the purchasing coordinator, and a review of the year's changes, produced six candidate causes. In March 2025, the company switched its perimeter insecticide to a cheaper product. Route density increased from about 14 to 17 stops per technician per day after a large new neighborhood was added. Nine of the twenty-eight technicians were hired in the past year, and new-hire training was shortened from three weeks to two. The summer was unusually wet, which increases some pest activity. And the company stopped sending a post-treatment text that told customers insects may appear for up to two weeks as they leave hiding, which may lead customers to call about normal activity.
Organizing the Causes
Ishikawa (1986) developed the cause-and-effect diagram to help teams see causes in categories rather than as a list. Arranged this way, the six causes fall into five groups.
Candidate causes by category
| Category | Candidate cause | What it assumes |
|---|---|---|
| Materials | Cheaper perimeter product since March | The product is less effective or lasts less long |
| Methods | Routes grew from 14 to 17 stops a day | Technicians have less time per home |
| People | Nine new technicians; training cut to two weeks | Less experienced technicians miss problems |
| Environment | Wet summer | Pest pressure rose regardless of service quality |
| Customers | Post-treatment text discontinued | Some callbacks are normal activity, not failures |
| People | Lower effort, the owner's view | Experienced technicians are trying less |
The diagram shows something a list did not: four of the six candidate causes are changes the company itself made in the past year. That does not prove any of them is the cause, but it suggests the owner's explanation is only one of several.
The Problem Statement
Facione (2015) stresses that good reasoning begins with a clear question. The problem statement is: callbacks for re-treatment rose from 6 percent to 11 percent of scheduled visits between August 2024 and August 2025, costing about $62,000 a year and contributing to a rise in cancellations from 14 to 19 percent. The statement names the measure, the size, the period and the effect, and it does not name a cause.
Why Definition Matters Here
Getting the definition right is not an academic exercise. If the owner's penalty were adopted and the real cause were the cheaper product, technicians would be punished for something they could not control, the best of them might leave, and callbacks would continue. The company would also lose the chance to recover the money saved on the product, which was about $11,000 a year, much less than the $62,000 the callbacks now cost. Similarly, if the discontinued customer text were responsible for even a third of the callbacks, reinstating it would cost almost nothing. A clear definition and a fair test of each cause protect the company from spending money and goodwill on the wrong answer.
The owner's view should not be dismissed either. He has run the business for nearly forty years and knows his technicians. It is possible that a few have become careless and that the data will show it. The point of critical thinking here is not to prove him wrong but to give his explanation the same fair test as the others, so that whatever the company decides, it decides on evidence.
Evidence Plan
Each cause predicts a different pattern in the data. If the product is responsible, callbacks should have risen sharply after March, mainly for perimeter treatments. If routes are responsible, technicians with the most stops should have the most callbacks. If new technicians are responsible, callbacks should be concentrated among those hired in the past year. If the weather is responsible, neighboring companies should report a similar rise. If the discontinued text is responsible, many callbacks should find no treatment failure. If effort has fallen, callbacks should have risen for experienced technicians across all services. The Module Three analysis will test these patterns in the service records.
Conclusion
The callback problem is real and costly, but its cause is not yet known. Six candidate causes, four of them company decisions, need to be tested before a fix is chosen. The owner's proposed penalty should wait for the evidence.
References
Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment.
Ishikawa, K. (1986). Guide to quality control (2nd ed.). Asian Productivity Organization.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools (8th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
What the BUS 225 Module 2 instructions ask for
The Module Two assignment in BUS 225 asks you to apply critical thinking to a business situation, often by defining a problem, examining assumptions and evidence and planning an approach. You may be asked to use a framework such as a set of critical thinking standards, a cause-and-effect diagram or root cause questioning. Strong submissions resist the first explanation offered, show how each possible explanation rests on assumptions, and write a problem statement that is specific, measurable and free of a built-in solution. They end with a plan for gathering the evidence that would decide among explanations. Many versions also ask you to reflect on how your own first reaction compared with the reasoned definition.
How this BUS 225 Module 2 critical thinking assignment example is built
The paper starts with the owner's view that technicians have become careless and shows that it assumes the cause before examining evidence. It defines the symptom as callbacks rising from 6 to 11 percent of visits and lists six candidate causes: a switch to a cheaper perimeter product in March, routes that grew from 14 to 17 stops a day, nine new technicians hired in the year, an unusually wet summer, a reduction in training time and customers not being told that insects may appear for up to two weeks after treatment. A cause-and-effect diagram groups them. The problem statement names the measure and the period, and a table pairs each cause with the data that would test it.
Where the BUS 225 Module 2 rubric puts the points
Marks for the critical thinking paper usually go to a clear separation of symptoms and causes, the examination of assumptions, the range and organization of possible causes, the quality of the problem statement, the evidence plan and writing. Strong papers question the first explanation without dismissing it, identify the assumptions behind each cause, use a framework to organize thinking and write a problem statement that does not contain its own answer. Papers lose credit for jumping to solutions, for problem statements that are vague or blame individuals, for lists of causes without organization and for skipping how the causes would be tested.
BUS 225 Module 2 help: the mistakes that cost points
The most common error in this assignment is solving the problem in the first paragraph. Slow down: describe the symptom precisely, list several possible causes and ask what each assumes. A good problem statement says what is happening, how much, since when and to what effect, without naming a cause or solution. Organize causes with a simple diagram or categories so you do not miss whole areas, such as materials or customer behavior. Finish with a plan that pairs each cause with the evidence that would confirm or rule it out. Show the reader that you considered the person who proposed the first explanation, since problem definitions often have to persuade a boss.
Get BUS 225 Module 2 written to your instructions
Send the BUS 225 Module 2 assignment and your scenario. The paper will separate symptoms from causes, test assumptions, map candidate causes, write a sharp problem statement and plan the evidence. About two days; a first paper is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
More BUS 225 papers and related BS Business Administration samples
- BUS 225 Module 1 Discussion: The Skills an Employer Notices First
- ACC 427 Module 7 Project Two: A Data-Driven Report on Voided Cash Tickets
- BUS 206 Module 6 Discussion: A Hotel Partner That Walks Away
- ACC 202 Module 2 Project Milestone One
- OL 320 Module 6 Startup Financing Assignment
BUS 225 Module 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free BUS 225 Module 2 Critical Thinking sample?
This page offers a complete BUS 225 Module 2 paper defining a pest control company's callback problem.
What is the difference between a symptom and a root cause?
A symptom is the visible effect, such as rising callbacks; a root cause is the underlying reason that, if removed, would stop the symptom from recurring.
What is a cause-and-effect diagram?
A diagram, also called a fishbone diagram, that organizes possible causes of a problem into categories such as people, methods, materials, environment and customers.
How do you write a good problem statement?
Say what is going wrong, by how much and over what period, and what it costs, while leaving the cause and the fix out of the sentence.
Why examine assumptions in business problem solving?
Because unexamined assumptions, such as blaming employees, can lead to fixes that do not address the real cause and may damage morale.