Get Help With Your Essay
"Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results."
must use the 3 sources at the bottom and only those 3
no quoting directly from text it must all be in your own words
A PDF document of a comparison of the three papers for which you did individual summaries. This should be one coherent story for the topic that you chose. This document should be
no more than 10 pages in length (double spaced and 1” margins). If you provide figures, graphs,
tables, etc… these do not count against your page limit.
Additional Formatting Requirements:
• Name at the top of the first page.
• No header or footer other than page number.
• Any figures or graphs must be at the end of the document with each item being on its own
page and properly titled. Any figure or graph included should be referenced in the text.
– On its own page.
– At the end of the writing, but before any figures or tables.
– Consistent citation style.
• File name must be memo_[yourlastname].
The goal of the Memo is for students to take their individual summaries and meld them together to form
a cohesive story regarding the topic at hand. Please note the above listed maximum number of pages is
exactly that – a maximum (a good phrase to remember when writing is: “All Killer. No Filler.”) Your
grade for this component will be based on you presenting a coherent analysis of the papers that you have
individually analyzed (think: contrast and compare) with respect to overall topic.
The following bolded items are sections that you must include in your Memo. Make sure to, at least,
address all the points that you see below in the relevant section. Additionally, these sections must be
presented in the order that appears below. You may add additional sections and there is no restriction on
where they appear in your Memo – use your best judgment.
Introduction: At a minimum, in this section you will state the topic at hand, its importance and outline
what papers will be presented.
Contribution: What are the contributions of each paper? Do any of the papers build off the other ones
you will discuss? Are the contributions of equal importance?
Findings: You should give a brief preview of both the major and minor findings of each of the papers.
You must compare and contrast theses findings across the papers. In the following sections you will
discuss reasons why these differences exist, or why, given the differences in the inputs of the paper,
the findings are not dissimilar.
Data and Sample Composition: Describe the data sources and data sets that each paper uses. How
might differences in the data sets used by the papers generate the differences or similarities of the
findings? If papers are using very different data and get similar results, what does this imply?
Assumptions and Limitations: Every paper makes assumptions and every paper has limitations. How
do the differences (similarities) in the assumptions generate differences/similarities in the results?
What are the limitations of each paper? Does one paper try to address another paper’s limitations?
Are these differences in limitations driving the differences in results?
Conclusion: Wrap-up your discussion about the topic. Make sure to remind the reader about what papers you have discussed, their findings, and any major points of difference similarities between the
References: The references/bibliography section should begin on its own page after the above sections
and before any figures or tables. The reference section should use a consistent citation style. Make
sure to list each author (that is, there should be no “et al.”s in this section).
On the efficiency of racetrack betting market: a new test for the favourite-longshot bias
Jeong, Jinook ; Kim, Jee Young ; Ro, Yoon Jae
Applied economics, 2019-11-20, Vol.51 (54), p.5817-5828
Gandar, J. M., Richard A. Zuber, R. S. Johnson, and W. Dare. 2002. “Re-Examining
the Betting Market on Major League Baseball Games: Is There a Reverse FavoriteLongshot Bias?” Applied Economics 34 (10):1309–1317
Explaining the Favorite-Longshot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions? Erik
Snowberg and Justin Wolfers NBER Working Paper No. 15923 April 2010 JEL No.