Anitbiotic resistant bacteria essays

Anitbiotic resistant bacteria essays Almost 60 years ago the first antibiotics were developed, and they were created at a time when previously untreatable infections such as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and syphilis could be almost miraculously cured. Infections like these could be a death sentence, and until recently they many be just that again. Microbes are learning the ability to fight of these antibiotics and become resistant to them. They are gaining resistance through a number of different ways, and science is in a race to keep up with there amazing evolution. Bacteria are the common name for prokaryotic cells, which lack a nucleus. Rather they have a nucleoid region where their DNA is stored in direct contact with their cytoplasm. Their DNA, through transcription and translation, directs ribosomes to assemble proteins. They reproduce by binary fission, and are mostly heterotrophic. Bacteria can exchange DNA in three ways: transformation, transduction, and conjugation. In transformation a bacterial cell becomes competent, or able to take up DNA from the surrounding fluids. In conjugation two bacterial cells, a donor and a recipient join and DNA is transferred from one to the other. In these cases the new DNA either incorporates itself into the existing DNA or forms an independent molecule within the cell called a plasmid (Christensen). Antibiotics are substances produced by microorganisms that kill or inhibit other microorganisms from growing or reproducing. Antibiotics are products of the earth and are all-natural. For clinical purposes, bacteria are said to be resistant to an antimicrobial when they are insignificantly affected by concentrations of the drug that can be achieved at the site of the infection. As might be expected, achievable concentrations vary dramatically from place to place in the body. Sensitivity of organisms to antimicrobials may be quantified by the minimum concentration required to inhibit their growth (minimum inhibitory concen...

30 Things You Wish People Told You About College

30 Things You Wish People Told You About College This post is going to save tons of aspiring college students time, money, headaches, broken hearts, etc. Read it and discover 30 things you’ll be glad we told you about college. 1. â€Å"If possible, you should make sure the college you’re going to is accredited or it’s quite nearly a complete waste of time.† 2. â€Å"If the college isn’t worth a damn, you can get that same type/level degree through 2 year community college programs.† 3. â€Å"Community college credits transfer over to four year universities easily because of partnerships, while those from for-profit colleges do not.† 4. â€Å"Don’t take one class until you’re ABSOLUTELY SURE what your career path is. If that means waiting a bit and getting to work†¦do it.† 5. â€Å"Try not to miss a single job fair at your college†¦ever. It’s who you know in this world and how you know them, not what you know. Gather as much in-your-face time with potential employers in your field of study as possible.† 6. â€Å"Your ability to pass classes will get you a piece of paper with a shiny star, some highbrow writing with a nice font and your name on it. Your ability, or inability, to network will get you a great job or not.† 7. â€Å"Don’t just stick with what you know. Being the smartest guy in class is like being the coolest kid at nerd camp. Find something more challenging!† 8. â€Å"You should have your four years of college pretty much mapped out before you begin. You know exactly what classes you need and won’t waste any time or money.† 9. â€Å"Never procrastinate when it comes to signing up for important classes. Missing a class altogether can be a huge set-back.† 10. â€Å"Summer classes aren’t just for making up for your slack the year before, but also for getting an edge on the year to come.† 11. â€Å"It’s either get a job or an internship. Which one is more important to your career goals depends on your specific major. Keep in mind that once you enter the job market, an internship = experience.† 12. â€Å"Stay physically fit throughout college. It makes dating easier, the mind sharper and adds to the overall quality of your life during such a critically developmental stage. Plus people in shape get treated better and get more chances†¦sad but the truth nonetheless.† 13. â€Å"Yes, if you can and it doesn’t break some super-serious religious or moral inclination, go get some. Have sex! Most people don’t get to be around/sleep with young attractive college-age guys/gals much after college is over. Just protect yourself.† 14. â€Å"Studying abroad is something you should take advantage of while in college when you can get cheaper rates with tons of payoff. After college it becomes harder to travel like that without being in a career that requires it.† 15. â€Å"Make connections with important people like professors and those that work directly with anything having to do with internships. As they get more competitive it’s about who you know.† 16. â€Å"Keep a close eye on your reputation. It’s okay to be wild and crazy to a degree, but remember that someone’s always watching, especially when you’ve got high ambitions.† 17. â€Å"Do anything you can to save money on textbooks/non-textbooks for reading outside class. Is the college bookstore really the only place to get them? Heard of the internet?† 18. â€Å"Don’t be the poor college student who has to eat nothing but unhealthy crap all the time. Eat healthy! Do what it takes. Even if you have to wait tables in a local health-restaurant. Your brain takes up 30% of your daily recommended energy intake!† 19. â€Å"Don’t get swept up into the college blues. Depression sucks. It’s ridiculous. You’re young and in college rather than all the other horrible situations you could be in otherwise. Relax†¦Ã¢â‚¬  20. â€Å"Worry about being comfortable in your own skin. Be your own hero. Be your own best friend. After that new people will be attracted to you and making friends will be easy.† 21. â€Å"These college years ARE NOT going to be the best years of your life. You’re only getting started. College is transitory.† 22. â€Å"Taking a year off isn’t a good idea 90% of the time. Most never return and end up spending a fortune on a non-degree†¦Ã¢â‚¬  23. â€Å"Don’t depend on ANYONE else other than yourself to graduate. This includes advisors. Ultimately it’s your responsibility to take the classes you need.† 24. â€Å"Make sure you take any tech/computer classes seriously. The amount of human jobs in 2020 and beyond will be few.† 25. â€Å"Get a good amount of sleep each night. Seriously†¦Ã¢â‚¬  26. â€Å"Don’t get too comfortable.† 27. â€Å"Remember, most of the time the people in your class that are doing better than you aren’t smarter†¦they just work harder than you do.† 28. â€Å"Don’t be an idiot. Go to class!† 29. â€Å"Don’t just sit in class quite as a mouse or dozing off. Be engaged! This is costing money.† 30. â€Å"Take it easy with the gaming!† It’s your turn people. We couldn’t have possibly covered everything, so post a comment and tell everyone something you wish you had been told before doing the college thing.

Parents should not let their children spend much time watching Research Paper

Parents should not let their children spend much time watching television - Research Paper Example The debate on whether parents should or should not let their children append a lot of time watching TV carries much weight. This is in relation to how much beneficial or adverse extended periods of TV watching are to children and the likely effects to their later lives. As a result, we seek to find reasons as to why parents should not let their children spend too much time watching television, as well as some of the reasons why watching it is beneficial to children. Common arguments among those who are against children watching TV fall on morality. In this light morality carries issues of violence and risk assessment in regard to one’s behavior. The argument they place on the issue lays on the content aired on Television programs depicting the use of violence, and other violent acts, mild or severe, in resolution of conflicts between individuals and groups. This is in cases of religious violence that at times is aired blatantly by some radical organizations in a quest to incit e sympathizers to join them in their fight for goals they hold dear. In some movies and programs that are aired on TV, going by the name of action, tend to contain scenes of violence that are, at times, claimed to be justified. This is by having story lines that claim the perpetrator to have a genuine or righteous cause that should be seen to the end. The cause is usually on the lines of rescuing loved ones or fighting crime, quite literally. Owing to this, those that are against children watching TV claim that these negative behaviors and attitudes may get to their children. In addition, opposers of TV claim that images portrayed to children are not as simple as thought as they produce the opposite of the desired effect. This is in regard to showing children that there is no room for negotiation in wrongdoing and that violence is the only means of resolution of conflicts of interests should other means fail. This is in spite of other options having no chance to prove themselves in clearing controversial or volatile situations. Owing to such programming issues, the more time that a child spends watching TV translates to increased exposure to such rash concepts that adults engage in with little regard for the consequences. The other form of violence that children get exposure to is that of violence expressed towards women. Violence perpetrated against women on TV leads to poor images of women that remain etched in the young and innocent minds of children (Kahlor and Eastin 215). This occurs by labeling males as the dominant human in any situation, in the society. Therefore, to exercise their dominance, men maintain their dominance, when threatened, through violence creating a negative image of women. In addition, through violence directed at women, children gain a wrong perception that the only way to suppress women in their quest to gain an equal status as men is to subject them to acts of subordination. Such actions include sexual assault and sexual violence in the form of rape (Kahlor and Eastin 216). Opposers, in my opinion, therefore, have solid ground on this issue with backing from facts as evidence sustains their arguments In addition to their claims, violence on TV appears as a positive thing that is to be emulated in order to live a full and satisfying life. This is particularly so by using violence by TV stars to gain wealth and live a fulfilling life. Violence of this form and in such levels translates to poor relations with others, as what the child understands is how to use his or her physical strength to enforce decisions, or wishes. This way, children tend to exercise violent acts towards other children in the society and at school; which makes TV viewing a contributor to bad living (Facts for Families). On the moral issue of risk assessment, those that are against watching extended hours of TV for children due effects it has on their awareness of the experiences found in the world. They base this on the idea that, to make decisions on

Review Of ARM, Intel and the microprocessor industry in 2014 Essay

Review Of ARM, Intel and the microprocessor industry in 2014 - Essay Example tegies and sustainability operations with every influential factor of its external business environment, it lacks competitive advantage in attracting business customers from almost every dimension of the industry due to the exclusion of smaller corporate partners from the technology industry. Taking the advantage of this lacuna possessed by Intel, its rivals like AMD can be witnessed to grow powerful, obstructing the monopolistic power gained by Intel over the past decades. Intel (officially acknowledged as Intel Corporation), a globally renowned American semiconductor-chip manufacturing multinational, has witnessed significant rise in its demand around the various electronics companies, who are noted as its major strategic partners in the industry cluster (Haberberg & Rieple, 2008). However, with every opportunity, there come certain challenges, which are also apparent in the case of Intel, as on one hand, the company enjoys substantial lucrative growth opportunities and on the other, it is obstructed by rising competitive forces inhibiting its dominion on the industry cluster (Haberberg, 2014). It is in this context that scepticism develops surrounding the chances of an end to Intel’s long sustaining dominance on the market. Hence, examining Intel’s business environment and its current strategic positioning becomes crucial. Correspondingly, this report will aim at presenting a brief but insightful assessment of the business environment and strategies applied by Intel currently along with a critical strategic appraisal to conclude on the actual industry stance of the company and offer noteworthy strategic recommendations correspondingly. Buyer Power: As orders are accepted only in bulks by the companies in this industry, the bargaining power of buyers increases, facilitated with the characteristics of business-to-business dealings (Klepper, 2010). Again, availability of heterogeneous products also tends to limit buyers’ power in this industry, offering

History of Bareilly Essay Example for Free

History of Bareilly Essay The region has, also, acted as a mint for a major part of its history. From archaeological point of view the district of Bareilly is very rich. The extensive remains of Ahichhatra, the Capital town of Northern Panchala have been discovered near Ramnagar village of Aonla Tehsil in the district. It was during the first excavations at Ahichhatra (1940–44) that the painted grey ware, associated with the advent of the Aryans in Ganga Yamuna Valley, was recognised for the first time in the earliest levels of the site. Nearly five thousand coins belonging to periods earlier than that of Guptas have been yielded from Ahichhatra. It has also been one of the richest sites in India from the point of view of the total yield of terracotta. Some of the masterpieces of Indian terracotta art are from Ahichhatra. In fact the classification made of the terracotta human figurines from Ahichhatra on grounds of style and to some extent stratigraphy became a model for determining the stratigraphy of subsequent excavations at other sites in the Ganga Valley. On the basis of the existing material, the archaeology of the region helps us to get an idea of the cultural sequence from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC up to the 11th c. AD. Some ancient mounds in the district have also been discovered by the Deptt. of Ancient History and culture, Rohilkhand University, at Tihar-Khera (Fatehganj West), Pachaumi, Rahtuia, Kadarganj and Sainthal. [2]

Adorno: Semi-Formation as Cultural Reconstruction of Society :: Culture Cultural Papers

Adorno: Semi-Formation as Cultural Reconstruction of Society ABSTRACT: The apprehension of the culture industry in its totality, as it is presented in Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment, makes it necessary to turn to his Theory of Self-Formation, where the cultural domain of the constellation of society has an explicit formative dimension. The cultural formation, the German Bildung, expresses such a prism. It is not a national peculiarity, but it translates in the experience of delay of the German bourgeois society as the formative dimension of culture, generally hidden in the social constitution, facilitating the basis of immanent criticism. In the State interventionist society that follows the liberal order, with the manipulation of the totalitarian State and the society of mass consumption, the productive process does not tolerate the formative experience of autonomy: there is a social reconstruction of culture as culture industry, which turns out to be a political concept. Here there is not absence, but an eclipse of formation. It is semi -formation: only integration, without autonomy. When universality, instead of residing in ideals formed within culture formation, resides on universalization of given cultural goods, the mercantile ideals only integrate the masses. The culture industry is the chore of what appears as the cultural construction of society, in terms of the integrating semi-formation. The disintegration of the working class and its reconstruction en masse are a result of the formation process of which the culture industry is a part. Formation is concealed because the social construction is confounded with the cultural construction; society is itself ideology. The social organization obstructs the experience of the social formative labor in the integration. Society appears to be an extra-productive socialization. In the Dialectic of Enlightenment (1985), written with Horkheimer, Adorno analyzed the social formation of a State interventionist order, that followed the earlier liberal one. To the authors, then emigrated to the USA, the north-American experience of mass culture complemented the experience of cultural manipulation of the totalitarian fascism, conditioning the famous conception of culture industry. The manipulation of the masses by the totalitarian fascist State in its function as the main economic agent would be found again in the consumers' society. Such society, apparently did not need the support of a legitimating ideology. By representing the fulfillment of ideals as consumers goods the society itself becomes ideology. The rise of the living standards of the inferior classes, materially reprehensible and socially regretful, reflects itself on the hypocrite expansion of the spirit.

International Governance of Environmental resources

People need many natural resources to live. Other natural resources are used to make life easier. Defining Global Governance Governance is the framework of social and economic systems and legal and political structures through which humanity manages itself. † World Humanity Action Trust, 2000. Environmental governance â€Å"is the term we use to describe how we as humans exercise our authority over natural resources and natural systems. † It is about questions concerning â€Å"how we make environmental decisions and who makes them†¦. Using this broad conceptualization, environmental governance involves much more than the work of governments. It â€Å"relates to decision-makers at all levels-?government managers and ministers, business people, property wieners, farmers, and consumers. In short, it deals with who is responsible, how they wield their power, and how they are held accountable. † In discussions of governance, three terms come up often: Institution s. In the context of governance, â€Å"institutions† can be thought of as the formal and informal rules that govern social interactions.Formal rules are illustrated by laws and regulations, and informal rules are illustrated by social norms. Good governance. This term is used to describe governance characterized by high levels of transparency, accountability, and fair treatment. Civil society. This term â€Å"refers to the arena of uncovered collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated.Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organ izations, community groups, women's organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trades unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy group. † Why Reform?Nature of problems Scale, scope and complexity Failed collective action Lack of incentives for collaboration Fragmentation Institutional proliferation Deficient authority Inadequate mandate, funding, political support Insufficient legitimacy Lack of process and outcome fairness What to Reform? Institutional structure re's Institutional methods of governing What to Achieved? Improved problem solving Improved collective action Enhanced legitimacy Strengthened policy space Improved fairness New global ethic How to Reform?

Global Chemical Industry

www. moodys. com Rating Methodology Table of Contents: Summary About the Rated Universe About This Rating Methodology The Key Rating Factors Assumptions and Limitations and Rating Considerations That are not Covered in the Grid Conclusion: Summary of the GridIndicated Rating Outcomes Appendix A: Global Chemcial Industry Methodology Factor Grid Appendix B: Methodology GridIndicated Ratings Appendix C: Observations and Outliers for Grid Mapping Appendix D: Chemical Industry Overview Appendix E: Key Rating Issues over the Intermediate Term 1 3 5 8Corporate Finance December 2009 Moody’s Global Global Chemical Industry Summary This rating methodology explains Moody’s approach to assessing credit risk for global chemical companies. This document replaces a previous publication from February 2006. The grid for the rating methodology is substantially unchanged from the 2006 publication, with minor updates to provide greater clarity regarding application of the grid. We also hav e provided a clearer explanation of how ratings in the chemical industry are derived.This publication is intended to provide a reference tool that can be used when evaluating credit profiles within the global chemical industry, helping issuers, investors, and other interested market participants understand how key qualitative and quantitative risk characteristics are likely to affect rating outcomes. This methodology does not include an exhaustive treatment of all factors that are reflected in Moody’s ratings but should enable the reader to understand the qualitative considerations and financial ratios that are most important for ratings in this sector.This report includes a detailed rating grid and illustrative mapping of each rated company in a representative sample of companies against the factors in the grid. The purpose of the rating grid is to provide a reference tool that can be used to approximate credit profiles within the chemical industry sector. The grid provides summarized guidance for the factors that are generally most important in assigning ratings to chemical companies. The grid is a summary that does not include every rating consideration, and our illustrative mapping uses historical results while our ratings methodology also considers forward-looking expectations.As a result, the grid-indicated rating is not expected to match the actual rating of each company. 17 18 19 20 21 26 27 Analyst Contacts: New York 1. 212. 553. 1653 William Reed Vice President -Senior Credit Officer John Rogers Senior Vice President James Wilkins Vice President -Senior Analyst Steven Wood Senior Vice President Tokyo 81. 35408. 4100 Noriko Kosaka Vice President -Senior Analyst Analyst Contacts continued on last page Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical IndustryThe grid contains five key factors that are important in our assessments for ratings in the global chemical sector: 1. Business Profile 2. Size & Stability 3. Cost P osition 4. Leverage / Financial Policies 5. Financial Strength Each of these factors also encompasses a number of sub-factors or metrics, which we explain in detail. Since an issuer’s scoring on a particular grid factor often will not match its overall rating, in the Appendix we include a brief discussion of â€Å"outliers† – companies whose grid-indicated rating for a specific factor differs significantly from the actual rating.This rating methodology is not intended to be an exhaustive discussion of all factors that Moody’s analysts consider in ratings in this sector. We note that our analysis for ratings in this sector covers factors that are common across all industries (such as ownership, management, liquidity, legal structure in the corporate organization, and corporate governance) as well as factors that can be meaningful on a company specific basis. Our ratings consider qualitative considerations and factors that do not lend themselves to a transp arent presentation in a grid format.The grid represents a compromise between greater complexity, which would result in grid-indicated ratings that map more closely to actual ratings, and simplicity, which enhances a transparent presentation of the factors that are most important for ratings in this sector most of the time. Because this methodology applies globally, it is necessarily general in some respects and is not intended to be an exhaustive and country-specific discussion of all factors that Moody’s analysts consider in every rating.Moody’s rating approach considers country-specific differences and at the same time allows for qualitative evaluation of these factors as well as other factors that cannot be easily presented in grid format. Highlights of this report include: ? ? ? An overview of our rated universe. A description of the key factors that drive rating quality. Comments on the rating methodology’s assumptions and limitations, including a discussio n on other rating considerations that are not included in the grid.The Appendices show the rating grid criteria on one page (Appendix A), tables that illustrate the application of the methodology grid to 20 representative rated chemical companies (Appendix B) with explanatory comments on some of the more significant differences between the grid-implied rating and our actual rating (Appendix C), a brief industry overview (Appendix D), and a discussion of key rating issues for the chemical sector over the intermediate term (Appendix E). 2 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate FinanceGlobal Chemical Industry About the Rated Universe Moody's rates 107 companies globally in the chemicals and allied industries. In the aggregate, these issuers have approximately $230 billion of rated debt. Our definition of the chemical industry includes a variety of related industrie s, such as: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Commodity organic and inorganic chemicals ? Specialty chemicals ? Plastics, resins and elastomers ? Fertilizers, agricultural chemicals and seeds ? Industrial gases ? Architectural and industrial coatings ? Flavors and fragrances ? Other food ingredients ? Pharmaceutical intermediates ?Organometallics ? Specialty materials produced from refinery by-products ? Specialty materials that are used in composites ? These companies develop and produce a wide variety of products including basic chemicals, specialty materials, and industrial gases. Products range from true commodities to highly customized products used in technically demanding applications. The rated universe is spread throughout the world with the highest concentrations in the Americas (68), Europe (24) and Middle East/Asia (15). Companies range in size from as large as $40 billion in revenues to as small as $100 million.Some may be multinational with numerous manufacturing locations aroun d the globe, while others may operate a single facility with domestic customers only. The highly volatile nature of the industry as well as fairly high levels of business risk make it increasingly difficult for all but a select few companies who are extremely large and diversified to achieve and maintain a Aa rating. Ratings of A3 or above are generally limited to larger companies or to smaller specialty companies that exhibit uncommon stability in financial performance and relatively low business risk.The Corporate Family Rating (CFR) or senior unsecured ratings of the covered issuers range from Aa2 to Caa2 with a concentration in the Baa, Ba and B rating categories. The median rating for chemical companies is Ba1. The vast majority of companies – 81 out of 107, approximately 76%, are in the Baa (27), Ba (26), and B (28) range because of the cyclical nature of the industry and our view of the industry’s moderate to high business risk. 3 December 2009 ? Rating Methodol ogy ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate FinanceGlobal Chemical Industry Exhibit 1: Global Chemical Rating Distribution 2009 and 2006 Chemical Industry Ratings Distribution 25 Number of Issuers 20 15 10 5 0 Aa2 Aa3 A1 A2 A3 Baa1 Baa2 Baa3 Ba1 Ba2 Ba3 Ratings 2009 – 107 com panies 2006 – 111 com panies B1 B2 B3 Caa1 Caa2 Caa3 Over the last ten years, in Europe and in the US, a growing number of speculative grade names have been added to the rated universe. This is attributable in part to incumbents' recent strategic efforts to focus on their core businesses by selling non-core assets as well as to a growing interest from private equity sponsors.For the purpose of this methodology we have identified 20 representative issuers out of the companies that we rate globally. These issuers represent both investment grade and speculative grade issuers. The criteria used to select the 20 focu sed on the larger, in terms of revenues, well-known issuers. For this reason the proportion of investment grade to non-investment grade issuers represented is higher than it is in the rated universe. 4 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate FinanceGlobal Chemical Industry Exhibit 2 Global Chemical Rating Methodology Representative Sample Company Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Shin-Etsu Chemical Company Ltd BASF (SE) E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Kaneka Corporation Teijin Limited Bayer AG Akzo Nobel N. V. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. Rating Aa3 A1 A2 A2 A3 A3 Baa1 Baa1 Baa1 Baa2 Baa2 Baa3 Ba1 Ba2 Ba3 Ba3 B1 B1 B1 B3 Outlook Stable Stable Negative Stable Negative Stable Negative Stable Stable Stable Stable Negative Stable Positive Stable Stable Stable Stable Positive NegativeApprox Debt millions $189 $21,347 $7,545 $293 $ 2,143 $20,215 $5,233 $3,082 $2,716 $1,441 $1,971 $23,073 $4,456 $3,390 $3,156 $1,217 $1,904 $4,681 $423 $3,451 LG Chem, Ltd. Eastman Chemical Company Yara International ASA The Dow Chemical Company Braskem SA Celanese Corporation Nalco Company ISP Chemco LLC NOVA Chemicals Company Huntsman Corporation PolyOne Corp Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. About This Rating Methodology This report explains the rating methodology for chemical companies in six sections, which are summarized as follows: 1.Identification of Key Rating Factors The grid in this rating methodology focuses on five key rating factors. These five broad factors are further broken down into eleven sub-factors that are equally weighted. 5 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry Factor Weighting Sub-Factor Weighting Rating Factor Relevant Sub-factor Operational Diversity Product Diversity Geographic Diversity Factor 1: Business Profile 9. 09%Commodity/Specialty Market Shares Raw Material Access Government Impact Revenues 9. 09% 9. 09% 9. 09% 9. 09% 9. 09% 9. 09% 9. 09% 9. 09% 9. 09% 9. 09% Factor 2: Size & Stability 27. 27% Divisions of Equal Size Stability of EBITDA Factor 3: Cost Position 18. 18% EBITDA Margin (5 yr Avg. ) ROA – EBIT / Avg. Assets (5 yr Avg. ) Factor 4: Leverage / Financial Policies 18. 18% Current Debt / Capital* Debt / EBITDA (5 yr Avg. )* EBITDA/ Interest Expense Factor 5: Financial Strength 27. 27% Retained Cash Flow/Debt (5 yr Avg. )* Free Cash Flow (FCF) /Debt (5 yr Avg. * *Where appropriate net adjusted debt may be used (see discussion of Cash Balances and Net Debt Considerations) 2. Measurement of the Key Rating Factors We explain below how the sub-factors for each factor are calculated. We also explain the rationale for using specific rating metrics, and the ways in which we apply them during the rating process. Mu ch of the information used in assessing performance for the sub-factors is found in or calculated using the company’s financial statements; others are derived from observations or stimates by Moody’s analysts. Moody’s ratings are forward-looking and incorporate our expectations of future financial and operating performance. We use both historical and projected financial results in the methodology and the rating process. Historical results help us to understand patterns and trends for a company’s performance as well as for peer comparison. While the rating process includes both historical and anticipated results, this document makes use of historical data only to illustrate the application of the rating methodology.Specifically, unless otherwise stated, the mapping examples in this report use reported financials for the last three audited fiscal years. All of the quantitative credit metrics incorporate Moody’s standard adjustments to income statemen t, cash flow statement and balance sheet amounts for, among others, off-balance sheet accounts, receivable securitization programs, under-funded pension obligations, and recurring operating leases. Note: For definitions of Moody's most common ratio terms please see Moody’s Basic Definitions for Credit Statistics, User’s Guide which can be found at www. oodys. com in the Research and Ratings directory, in the Special Reports subdirectory (07 June 2007, document #78480/SP4467). 3. Mapping Factors to the Rating Categories After identifying the measurements for each factor, the potential outcomes for each of the 11 sub-factors are mapped to a broad Moody’s rating category. (Aaa, Aa, A, Baa, Ba, B, Caa, Ca). 6 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry 4.Mapping Issuers to the Grid and Discussion of Grid Outliers In t his section (Appendix C) we provide tables showing how each company maps to grid-indicated ratings for each rating sub-factor and factor. The weighted average of the sub-factor ratings produces a grid-indicated rating for each factor. We highlight companies whose grid-indicated performance on a specific sub-factor is two or more broad rating categories higher or lower than its actual rating and discuss general reasons for such positive outliers and negative outliers for a particular factor or sub-factor. . Assumptions and Limitations and Rating Considerations That are not Included in the Grid This section discusses limitations in the use of the grid to map against actual ratings, additional factors that are not included in the grid that can be important in determining ratings, and limitations and key assumptions that pertain to the overall rating methodology. 6. Determining the Overall Grid-Indicated Rating To determine the overall rating, we convert each of the 11 factor ratings in to a numeric value based upon the scale below.Aaa 6 Aa 5 A 4 Baa 3 Ba 2 B 1 Caa 0 Ca -1 The numerical score for each factor is weighted equally with the results then summed, and divided by 11, to produce a total factor score. The total factor score is then mapped back to an alphanumeric rating based on the ranges in the table below. Grid-Indicated Rating Aaa Aa1 Aa2 Aa3 A1 A2 A3 Baa1 Baa2 Baa3 Ba1 Ba2 Ba3 B1 B2 B3 Caa1 Caa2 Caa3 Ca Total Factor Score X ? 5. 50 5. 17 ? X ; 5. 50 4. 83 ? X ; 5. 17 4. 50 ? X ; 4. 83 4. 17 ? X ; 4. 50 3. 83 ? X ; 4. 17 3. 0 ? X ; 3. 83 3. 17 ? X ; 3. 50 2. 83 ? X ; 3. 17 2. 50 ? X ; 2. 83 2. 17 ? X ; 2. 50 1. 83 ? X ; 2. 17 1. 50 ? X ; 1. 83 1. 17 ? X ; 1. 5 0. 83 ? X ; 1. 17 0. 50 ? X ; 0. 83 0. 33 ? X ; 0. 50 0. 17 ? X ; 0. 33 0. 0 ? X ; 0. 17 x ; 0. 0 7 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry For e xample, an issuer with a composite weighted factor score of 1. 5 would have a Ba2 grid-indicated rating. We used a similar procedure to derive the grid-indicating ratings in the tables embedded in the discussion of each of the five broad rating factors. The Key Rating Factors Moody’s analysis of chemical companies focuses on five broad factors: ? ? ? ? ? Business Profile Size & Stability Cost Position Leverage / Financial Policies Financial Strength Factor 1: Business Profile (9. 09% weight) Why It Matters Business Profile is an important indicator of credit quality.The chemical team at Moody's looks at seven factors and aggregates them into a single score which is then mapped to a specific rating. The first three factors focus on diversity. Diversity, whether it be operational, product, or geographic, is a key component of business position that, can help mitigate the volatility in financial performance characteristic of the chemical sector. 1. Operational Diversity Single s ite locations, as an indicator of operational diversity, can expose a company to the prospect of unanticipated down times.We note that this factor is extremely important. Where a company operates a single site, the risk of that single site failing is deemed to have such a catastrophic impact on the business model that even the prospect of site insurance or business interruption insurance will not provide sufficient mitigation against the potential effects of a fundamental failure of the site. 2. Diverse Product Lines Diverse product lines can help stem volatility in cash flows to the extent that different products can have varied pricing dynamics. 3. Geographic DiversityGeographic diversity can also be beneficial as a company with multiple plant sites can still be negatively affected by both economic and weather related events. 4. Commodity Versus Value Added Products In the chemical sector commodity players are typically more volatile in terms of cash flow generation whereas the va lue added producers often produce more stable cash flows. At times, today's value added producers can become more commodity-like in their cash flow generating capabilities, so we will carefully assess where a product or group of products may be in its life cycle. 5.Market Share or Unique Competitive Advantage Large market share suggests a sustainable business position with the proven ability to weather the volatile market conditions in the chemical cycle. In some instances companies with large market shares will adjust their production volumes to help balance the supply and demand dynamics in the markets served as a means to stabilize product pricing. Market share that is protected by patent and unique licensing restrictions can also be a strong, positive contributor to stable cash flows and performance. 8 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ?Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Che mical Industry 6. Exposure to Volatile Raw Materials Raw material exposures greater than 33% in terms of cost of goods sold, for example, can often result in dramatic swings in cash flow. This is especially true in times of supply/demand imbalances, which can create shortages in raw materials and exaggerate raw material price movements. Companies with the ability and foresight to locate their production facilities in areas of the world where they can benefit from long term fixed riced raw materials have a distinct advantage over companies that are subject to the vagaries of the raw material spot markets. 7. Impact of Government Regulation The final factor we assess is the positive or negative impact of government regulation. This factor addresses the positive or negative role that government regulation or policy may have on an individual company or sector of the chemical industry. For many companies, the impact of government regulation may be neutral. For some sectors, such as the e thanol sector in the U. S. the very existence of the sector is a function of government legislated policy. In still other instances, the government has sought to ban the use of certain products – such as MTBE – in some markets. This factor is also extremely important and we will, as explained below, overweight it when assessing companies for whom government regulations/mandates are, essentially, the sole driver for the business model. How We Measure it for the Grid The 7 Business Profile criteria are merged into an assessment score, as follows: Business Profile Assessment Score This score is made up of seven criteria.To each we assign a discrete numerical value. The values across the criteria range from (-2) to 2 with many coming in at 0 or 1. Moody's analysts may use a modifier of 0. 5 across the seven criteria to refine the score relative to other companies in the industry. These values are totaled into a score which is then mapped to a rating category in the followi ng manner: Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa Ca = = = = = = = = > 6. 0 > 4. 5 to < 6. 0 > 3. 5 to < 4. 5 > 2. 5 to < 3. 5 > 1. 5 to < 2. 5 > 0. 5 to < 1. 5 > – 0. 5 to < 0. 5 < – 0. 5 ?Operational diversity – We count the number of discrete operating plants that have a globally competitive scale. A (-2) is assigned for 1 or 2 plants, a 0 is assigned for 2 – 8 plants and a 1 is assigned if there are greater than 8 large manufacturing locations. This is one of three factors with a negative score given the importance we assign to operational diversity. A sole site simply leaves the company with too many eggs in one basket. Product diversity – We assign a 0 if a majority of cash flow is generated from 1-2 key product lines and a 1 if a company relies on 3 or more product lines or product categories.Geographic diversity – We assign a 0 if a majority of the production assets are primarily in a single geographic region and assign a 1 if production assets are i n multiple regions Commodity versus value added products – We assign a 0 if a majority of sales are primarily commodity products and assign a 1 if we view products as adding distinct unique additional value. Quantitative factors such as stability of EBITDA and EBITDA margins are used later as another component in the measurement of this important factor. ? ? ? 9 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical IndustryRating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry ? Market share – We assign a 0 if a market share is inconsequential relative to the next three largest competitors and assign a 1 if a sector or company has large share or few real competitors. We would assign a 2 if the company has a unique competitive advantage (patents, know-how, etc. ) that could reduce competition significantly. Market share assessments are driven by the definition of the markets served. Definitions should be wide enough to represent legitimate alternative products.Raw material access – We assign a (-1) or (-2) if we estimate exposure to volatile raw material costs at greater than 33% of costs of goods sold. We assign a 0 if exposure to volatile raw materials costs is from 10% to 33% of costs of good sold. We assign a 1 if the exposure to raw materials is less than 10% and a 2 if the company has a material, demonstrable, long-lived feedstock advantage. Given the importance of raw material inputs to ultimate cash flows this metric is vitally important. It is one of three metrics with a possible negative value. Given the importance of this metric, the value can go as high as 2.Impact of governmental regulations or policies – For companies subject to significant government regulations or sensitive to changes in government policies, we assign a score reflecting the positive or negative impact of these regulations/policies on the companies' long term financial perform ance. Most of the companies in this industry will score a 0. Ethanol producers in the US would be assigned a (-1) because of their reliance on government regulation to create demand for the product. Companies that would be positively affected over the long term by government regulations could be assigned a 1. ? The importance of the business profile score is highlighted by the fact that, in certain cases, it can outweigh all other factors in the methodology, materially lowering ratings. The two most prominent examples are: operations limited to a single site and a business model whose success is highly or solely dependent on government actions or policies. Factor 1: Business Profile (9. 09%) Weight a) Business Position Assessment 9. 09% Aaa ? 6. 0 Aa 4. 5 – 6. 0 A 3. 5 – 4. 5 Baa 2. 5 – 3. 5 Ba 1. 5 – 2. 5 B 0. 5 – 1. 5 Caa – 0. 5 – 0. 5 Ca ; – 0. 5A chart that illustrates grid mapping results for Factor 1 and a discussion of o utliers for companies in the sample is included in Appendix C. Factor 2: Size & Stability (27. 27% weight) Why It Matters This factor includes discrete quantitative measures that attempt to measure size, diversity and the stability of a business model. Large revenues combined with large divisions as well as a long history of stable performance suggest sustainable business positions that have been and will be able to demonstrably weather the vagaries of capital and economic cycles. SizeSize can suggest the ability to benefit from much needed economies of scale both in production and access to raw materials on a preferred basis. In addition, size suggests the ability to service large customers globally — an important attribute as many customers step up efforts to reduce the number of their suppliers. Size also tends to favor the companies that sovereigns, government related entities, and other large companies choose as their joint venture partners or technology suppliers of che micals that add important value added properties to customer’s products. Number of DivisionsThe presence of multiple large divisions typically signals a balanced diversified product portfolio and, by extension, more stable cash flows. Companies with high product concentration may exhibit more volatile cash flows and may be more vulnerable to one time events that can be damaging to credit quality. Multiple divisions also provide for discrete assets that can be sold as necessary to provide alternate liquidity. Larger companies 10 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate FinanceGlobal Chemical Industry with many divisions can, for example, sell weaker performing or non-core segments, with the sale proceeds providing funding for debt reduction or growth in other segments. Stability of Business Model (Stability of EBITDA) Given the diversity of this industry, we attempt to gauge the likely level of volatility in earnings and cash flow. Companies with elevated levels of volatility in earnings and cash flow will require better liquidity and more robust financial metrics, on average, to compensate for uncertainty over the magnitude and duration of potential downturns.We analyze the volatility of EBITDA over a long period of time (7-10 years, when the data is available) to get an estimation of the expected volatility of the company relative to its peers in the industry. While there are many problems associated with the use of EBITDA as a measure of either profitability or cash flow, EBITDA is typically less affected by extraordinary items, fluctuations in working capital, and capital spending on new capacity than other measures of cash flow. It also allows us to remove the potential impact from differences in capital intensity across the industry.To the extent that a company's EBITDA may contain unusual items, or items that we judge to be one- time, the reported data may be adjusted to improve the quality of the analysis and hence get a better view of the true volatility of the company relative to its peers in the industry. When companies have completed a transformational acquisition or divestiture, or if seven years of data is otherwise unavailable, we estimate this metric based on a comparison to other rated companies and attempt to adjust for differences in product or geographic mix, as well as the impact of feedstock advantages or disadvantages.A transforming transaction is typically defined as the acquisition or divestiture of assets that comprise more that 1/3 of the pre-transaction EBITDA. While we measure the past 7-10 years of data, we would emphasize that our ratings are a forward view informed by historical volatility. To the extent we believe that future performance might deviate from historical patterns, we will modify this factor. How We Measure it for the Grid Size Measured by Revenues We use the most recen t annual revenues or latest 12 month reported revenues.The current year's revenues obviously can be either understated or overstated subject to where the company is in the commodity price cycle. While the commodity price cycle may be different for various companies, this metric measures all companies, by and large, at the same point in the economic cycle. For companies whose revenues are on the border between two ratings categories, the analyst would consider the point in the commodity price cycle at which the measurement is taken and the estimate of future revenues. Divisions with Revenues of Equal Relative SizeThis factor can be captured from financial statements. We use the segment information found in the most recent quarterly report on a latest four quarter basis. We are attempting again to capture both diversity as well as scale. The analyst may adjust segment revenues manually to adjust for non-ordinary items or non-public segment information provided by management. For compa nies whose divisional revenues are volatile and subject to cycles, the analyst would again consider the point in the pricing cycle at which the measurement is taken.Our focus is to measure diversity of revenue streams. For a company with $1 billion in revenues – if all revenues come from a sole division/product it would map to a B. If there were four discrete divisions with $250 million in revenues each (essentially equal in size) it would map to a Baa. For a company with $10 billion in revenues with four discrete divisions/products, if two divisions had $3 billion in revenues each and 2 divisions had $2 billion in revenues each – it would still be judged to be relatively diverse and equate to a Baa. 1 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry Stability of EBITDA This factor is measured by the normalized standard error of the company's EBITDA as determined by a least squares regression on seven to ten years of data. We utilize standard error rather than standard deviation as it is much better at differentiating between commodity and specialty chemical companies.Standard deviation is a static measure that cannot clearly differentiate between a stable company growing over time and a commodity company whose volatility is induced by changes in its cash margins. Standard error is a statistical measure of the difference between the company's actual performance versus a theoretical line drawn through the data (hence normal growth in EBITDA over 7-10 years should not have a negative impact on this metric). The normalized standard error is obtained by dividing the standard error obtained from a linear regression by the average EBITDA over the period analyzed.This allows us to compare the standard error of large companies to much smaller companies This measurement is designed to capture two types of stabil ity: For smaller companies – The stability of business or businesses relative to other companies in the industry. The absolute size of a company is not considered. For larger companies – A very large or diverse commodity company may exhibit more stability based on the number of businesses in its portfolio, especially if the earnings of their individual businesses are not correlated (i. e. , all businesses don't go into a downturn or upturn at the same time).In statistical terms, if the covariance of the company’s businesses is low, the company's performance should be more stable although it may be an inherently cyclical commodity chemical business. Companies with a normalized standardized error above 40% (which maps to the Caa category) are most common for companies with very low or negative EBITDA at the bottom of a downturn. Factor 2: Size & Stability (27. 27%) Weight a) Revenue (Billions of US$) b) # of Divisions of Equal Size c) Stability of EBITDA 9. 09% 9. 09% 9. 09% Aaa ? $50 8 ; 2% Aa $20 – $50 6 to 7 2% – 6% A $10 – $20 5 6% – 12%Baa $5 – $10 4 12% – 20% Ba $1 – $5 2 or 3 20% – 30% B $. 2 – $1 1 or 2 30% – 40% Caa $. 1 – $. 2 1 40% – 60% Ca ; $. 1 0. 5 ? 60. 0% A chart that illustrates grid mapping results for Factor 2 and a discussion of outliers for companies in the sample is included in Appendix C. Factor 3: Cost Position (18. 18% weight) Why It Matters Relative cost position is a critical success factor for a chemical company because, in a downturn, (either cyclical or economic) prices often decline to the point where only companies with first and second quartile cash costs generate meaningful cash flow.Operating cost positions are a function of criteria that include size, access to low cost raw material inputs, location of assets, labor rates, and capital invested. Further, with low levels of financial leverage, low cost producers are typicall y better positioned to outperform competitors. Low cost producers, with low leverage, are better able to survive in a downturn and are also better positioned to grow when opportunities arise. A company's cash costs and its position on the industry cost curve, as well as the overall shape of the industry cost curve, are all valuable information.However, true cash cost curve data, while useful, is often proprietary or may be the property of various consultants and difficult to verify. 12 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry Comparisons across the wide variety of commodity and specialty chemical companies make it difficult to rely on relative or absolute costs for ranking companies. We use two measures in addition to information provided by companies to assess cost positions: ? ?EBITDA Margin Return on Average Assets How We Measur e it for the Grid EBITDA Margin This factor is used in part to gauge the quality of the pricing power a company has and is likely to achieve. It is measured using EBITDA, which includes recurring â€Å"other† income and excludes non-recurring â€Å"other† income and one time charges. This factor, along with several others, is an important measure of a company's profitability in multiple economic scenarios. We use the past three years' actual results along with our expectation for the next two years, and to consider the average as well as the high and low points.For illustrative purposes the measurement used in the company examples herein is based on an average of the past three years' EBITDA margin. The choice of EBITDA, versus EBIT, is driven in part by the many and varied depreciation polices used globally and the need for comparability between regions. Nonetheless, we recognize the weaknesses of EBITDA, discussed below, and analysts within regions will also evaluate EBIT margins as well. Another reason for the use of EBITDA is the aterial difference in capital intensity within sub-sectors of the chemical industry. The capital intensity of a large commodity company can be very different from a smaller specialty player. The use of EBITDA – as opposed to EBIT – has a disadvantage in that EBITDA fails to address the capital intensity of the chemical industry effectively. Clearly an important indicator of a company's ability to generate operating profit should be assessed after the costs of plant maintenance and capacity expansion, as represented by its annual depreciation charges.Experience indicates that while a chemical company's capital spending often swings with major projects, it will generally need to spend its depreciation over time as it maintains and develops new facilities. We attempt to capture the effect of this capital intensity in our use of free cash flow metrics in the financial strength rating factor discussion. Retu rn on Average Assets This is a strong measure of a company's ability to generate a consistent and meaningful return from its asset base. This metric specifically takes into account the capital intensive nature of the industry.This is also a five-year average measurement using the past three years of actual results along with our expectation for the next two years. We use total assets, less cash and short term investments rather than tangible assets to provide a more meaningful measure for the universe of speculative grade companies. Factor 3: Cost Position (18. 18%) Weight a) EBITDA Margin b) ROA – EBIT / Assets 9. 09% 9. 09% Aaa ? 30% ? 25% Aa 20% – 30% 15% – 25% A 15% – 20% 10% – 15% Baa 10% – 15% 7% – 10% Ba 8% – 10% 4% – 7% B 4% – 8% 2% – 4% Caa 1% – 4% 0. 5% – 2% Ca < 1% < 0. 5%A chart that illustrates grid mapping results for Factor 3 and a discussion of outliers for companies in the sam ple is included in Appendix C. 13 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry Factor 4: Leverage / Financial Policies (18. 18% weight) Why It Matters Management's willingness to enhance shareholder value via debt financed acquisitions and/or share repurchases, is likely to increase credit risk. The chemical industry is particularly vulnerable given its volatile nature.We learn about financial policies through a discussion with management that includes hypothetical scenarios. Such meetings often examine management's willingness to stretch its balance sheet and/or financial flexibility. The hypothetical situations often relate to acquisitions or share repurchase appetites. Concerning acquisitions, discussions often focus on size and on the combination of debt and/or equity that will be used to fund a growth initiative. Another key conce rn is management's approach to managing financial flexibility through a range of cycles.Specifically we look for an approach that emphasizes preparedness for lean times such that strong cash flows, when available, are used to reduce debt. Measurement of leverage and financial policies is based on two different estimates of leverage: current debt to capitalization, and debt to EBITDA. We believe that the amount of leverage with which management operates is a choice and a direct result of a company's financial strategy. Issuers, particularly those in the investment grade and high Ba rating categories, often actively manage to these ratios.Certainly these ratios, especially debt to EBITDA, are used by providers of capital in the form of specific covenant tests. Debt to capital is a simple way to compare the capital structure of companies operating within an industry, and managements often claim to manage to it. This metric is also a way to assess management's willingness to grow via de bt financed acquisitions. The debt to EBITDA ratio is a measure that balances the debt to capitalization ratio with a measurement of a company's ability to generate EBITDA both in times of peak pricing and in times of stress.We believe these two metrics provide insight into the company's financial policies, including its tolerance for debt and the ability of the company to ride out the highs and low of a cycle. How We Measure it for the Grid Debt to Capital This factor can be easily captured from financial statements using the most recent annual or quarterly debt and equity balances (incorporating our standard adjustments). There are certainly situations where this metric becomes less useful — particularly in the case of LBOs or spinouts wherein book equity is low or nonexistent. In these instances this metric could be given reduced weight.In the event that a company's book equity is extremely low and the stock is publicly traded, the analyst may use the market capital of the company in place of book equity in this ratio. While market capital has its own weaknesses and can be very volatile, this approach can be of some value. Debt to EBITDA For this measure we use a five-year average of the annual debt and EBITDA balances as shown on the financial statements. We look back three years and use estimates to make assumptions for two years going forward. Factor 4: Leverage / Financial Policies (18. 18%) * Weight a) Current Debt / Capital b) Debt / EBITDA 9. 09% 9. 09% Aaa lt; 15% < . 5x Aa 15% – 25% . 5x – 1. 5x A 25% – 35% 1. 5x – 2. 25x Baa 35% – 50% 2. 25x – 3x Ba 50% – 70% 3x – 4x B 70% – 80% 4x – 6x Caa 80% – 95% 6x – 8x Ca ? 95% ? 8x * Where appropriate net adjusted debt may be used (see discussion of Cash Balances and Net Debt Considerations) 14 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodo logy Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry A chart that illustrates grid mapping results for Factor 4 and a discussion of outliers for companies in the sample is included in Appendix C. Factor 5: Financial Strength (27. 7% weight) Why It Matters The three key indicators of financial strength are 1) Interest Coverage, 2) Retained Cash Flow to Debt, and 3) Free Cash Flow to Debt. All of these metrics are averaged over five-year periods to address the volatile nature of the industry. Interest coverage: Interest coverage can be particularly meaningful for speculative grade companies. This is especially true if the interest rate environment is in a period of change — such as the migration from lower rates to higher rates — and an issuer is facing the need to refinance debt that is nearing maturity. It is a less important metric for higher-rated companies.The remaining two metrics are useful across the rating spectrum and relate to the amount of ca sh flow available to cover varied scenarios of both operating needs and financing needs. ? ? Operating needs include major items such as working capital and capital spending. Financing needs refers to the impact of dividends and the â€Å"free† cash then available to service debt. As discussed above, the use of EBITDA (as opposed to EBIT) in the interest coverage ratio is important for companies in the chemical industry and the decision to use it is a function of the need to make the ratio more comparable globally.Retained Cash Flow and Free Cash Flow: The cash flow metrics we use measure two different levels of cash flow: retained cash flow and free cash flow and their ratio to total adjusted debt. Retained cash flow is a broader measure of financial flexibility than free cash flow as it excludes the potential ‘noise' created by changes in working capital and unusual capital spending programs. This is a helpful measure given the volatility and the variation in capital intensity within the chemical sector.As with other factors in which debt is involved we can look at these cash flow metrics in two ways — as a percentage of both debt and of net debt (net of cash balances). We use net debt for companies at which it is either a stated, long-lived policy to hold material cash balances or for which there may be unique scenarios such as recent asset sales whereby cash may be earmarked for use in debt reduction efforts. In some specific instances we may use a net debt denominator for the free cash flow metric as well. A more detailed discussion of our views on cash balances appears below.Free cash flow is, in many instances, one of the most important and reliable measures of financial strength and flexibility. This metric reflects a company's primary source of liquidity as it directly speaks to management's ability to service its debt burden after considering both its operating and financial commitments to shareholders. In this metric we often ide ntify where capital spending programs may be extraordinarily large and/or risky. At times, programs can have a direct impact on ratings because of the size of expenditure that may be involved as well as the risks of executing the program on time and on budget.If, for example, a large amount of capital is spent on new greenfield capacity and we believe that such capacity is being added at a time when product prices are low (i. e. , there is a lack of an adequate return on capital) the ratings may be negatively affected. There is also the risk that anticipated operating cash cost benefits upon project completion are different than expected. 15 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry How We Measure it for the GridInterest coverage This metric is a straightforward look at EBITDA (adjusted for non-recurring other income and one-time ch arges) to gross interest expense (including capitalized interest). This is a five-year measure. Cash Flow to Debt ? Retained Cash Flow to Debt – Defined as funds from operations (FFO) minus dividends, as a percentage of total debt. This is a five-year measure. Free Cash Flow to Debt – Defined as cash flow from operations (by its nature operating cash flow is determined after taking into account working capital) minus capital spending and dividends, as a percentage of total debt.This is a five-year measure. ? Cash Balances and Net Debt Considerations Typically, analysts approach the use of cash balances and the use of cash in â€Å"net debt† calculations in a conservative fashion. As a general rule we would not typically consider cash on the balance sheet as a true offset to adjusted total debt in for the purpose of ratio analysis. Reasons that we would not look at cash on the balance sheet as fungible for the debt include concern that: ? the cash is easily used for other purposes and debt reduction is only counted hen debt is permanently reduced in some instances cash is actually needed to fund the day-to-day operations of the issuer the cash is â€Å"stranded' overseas and subject to material taxes such that the true cash balance is materially lower than represented in the financial statements there may be other claims on the cash for restructuring efforts or legacy liabilities. ? ? ? There are, however, examples where our analysis for chemical companies incorporates cash balances as providing a measure of offset to adjusted total debt balances. Exceptions to the above analytical approach, for which we give credit for cash balances include: ? he specific refunding of near term debt maturities wherein management borrows in advance to prefund a near term maturity. cash is held temporarily for legal, tax or other purposes and the company has publicly stated its intention to reduce debt once the temporary period has ended. ? Other instances, typically only for large companies, include situations in which management has a history of maintaining material levels of cash on the balance sheet, it has publicly stated its intention not to pursue largedebt financed acquisitions or share repurchases, and cash is accessible without meaningful loss to taxes.In Europe and Latin America, we also generally observe that companies are more willing to maintain higher cash balances that may sometimes be linked to tax considerations or more broadly reflect a more conservative style of financial policies. Considering only gross debt may not reflect the real financial strength of these companies and we may prefer in this case to focus on net debt. In these cases, however, we capture the expectation that these cash balances can be liquidated at least at book value and without tax costs.Factor 5: Financial Strength (27. 27%) * Weight a) EBITDA / Interest Expense b) Retained Cash Flow / Debt c) Free Cash Flow / Debt 9. 09% 9. 09% 9. 09% Aaa ? 20x ? 65% ? 40% Aa 15x – 20x 45% – 65% 25% – 40% A 10x – 15x 30% – 45% 15% – 25% Baa 5x – 10x 20% – 30% 8% – 15% Ba 2x – 5x 10% – 20% 4% – 8% B 1x – 2x 5% – 10% . 5% – 4% Caa 0. 5x – 1x 1% – 5% 0% – . 5% Ca ; 0. 5x ; 1% ; 0% * Where appropriate net adjusted debt may be used (see discussion Cash Balances and Net Debt Considerations) 16 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ?Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry A chart that illustrates grid mapping results for Factor 5 and a discussion of outliers for companies in the sample is included in Appendix C. Assumptions, Limitations and Rating Considerations not Covered in the Grid The rating methodology grid incorporates a trade-off between simplicity that enhances transparency and greater complexity that would enable the grid to map more closely to actual ratings.The five rating factors in the grid do not constitute an exhaustive treatment of all of the considerations that are important for ratings of global chemical companies. In choosing metrics for this rating methodology grid, we did not include certain important factors that are common to all companies in any industry, such as the quality and experience of management, assessments of corporate governance and the quality of financial reporting and information disclosure.The assessment of these factors can be highly subjective and ranking them by rating category in a grid would, in some cases, suggest too much precision in the relative ranking of particular issuers against all other issuers that are rated in various industry sectors. Ratings may include additional factors that are difficult to quantify or that only have a meaningful effect in differentiating credit quality in some cases. Such factors include regulatory and l itigation risk as well as changes in end use demand such that today’s specialty chemical becomes tomorrow’s commodity.While these are important considerations, it is not possible to precisely express these in the rating methodology grid without making the grid excessively complex and less transparent. Ratings may also reflect circumstances in which the weighting of a particular factor or qualitative issue will be different from the weighting or outcome suggested by the grid. For example, the importance of the business profile score is highlighted by the fact that, in certain cases, it can outweigh all other factors in the methodology materially, lowering ratings significantly. The three most prominent examples are: ? ? operations limited to a single site, and a business model whose success is highly dependent on government actions or policies. a company with significant litigation related to either environmental or product liability issues. This variation in weighting as a rating consideration can also apply to factors that we chose not to attempt to represent in the grid. For example, liquidity is a rating consideration that can sometimes be critical to ratings and under other circumstances may not have a substantial impact in discriminating between two issuers with a similar credit profile.Ratings can be heavily affected by extremely weak liquidity that magnifies default risk. However, two identical companies might be rated the same if their only differentiating feature is that one has a good liquidity position while the other has an extremely good liquidity position. This illustrates some of the limitations for using grid-indicated ratings to predict rating outcomes. Another consideration is the increase in pension underfunding that occurred at the end of 2008 as a result of large declines in the global equity markets.Increased pension fund liability is unlikely to be the sole driver of ratings downgrades where issuers have adequate liquidity, sufficient resources to alleviate their funding deficiency over time and financial metric contraction is modest for their rating category and the metric contraction is expected to only temporarily deviate. In evaluating the impact of an issuer’s pension liability on ratings, the analyst will consider the magnitude of the shortfall, the ability of the company to reduce the shortfall over time using internal sources and committed external sources of capital, and the plans for doing so.Issuers with higher ratings are likely to avoid a downgrade solely resulting from the increased pension liability if there is a clearly articulated plan for reducing the liability and we believe there are resources available to meet the plan without putting the core business and financial profile at risk. Issuers with speculative grade ratings and those at the lower end of investment grade rating levels are at greater risk of ratings transition because of higher potential exposure to liquidity is sues and weaker perceived capability of eradicating the funding liability without weakening the company’s financial or business position. 7 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody’s Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry In addition, our ratings incorporate expectations for future performance, while the financial information that is used to illustrate the mapping in the grid is historical in practice we look at a combination of prior years and future years; usually three years of history and two years looking forward. In some cases, our expectations for future performance may be informed by confidential information that we cannot publish.In other cases, we estimate future results based upon past performance, industry trends, demand and price outlook, competitor actions and other factors. In either case, predicting the future is subject to the risk of substantial i naccuracy. Assumptions that can cause our forward looking expectations to be incorrect include unanticipated changes in any of the following: the macroeconomic environment and general financial market conditions, industry competition, new technology, regulatory actions, and changes in environmental regulation. Conclusion: Summary of the Grid-Indicated Rating OutcomesThe methodology grid-indicated ratings based on last twelve month financial data as of the quarter end closest to September, 30, 2009 map to current assigned ratings as follows (see Appendix B for the details): ? ? 8 companies map to their assigned rating 10 companies have a grid-indicated rating that is one or two alpha-numeric notches from the assigned rating 2 companies have a grid-indicated rating that is three notches from their assigned rating ? Overall, the framework indicates that there are an even number of companies whose grid-indicated rating is below their actual rating (6) than above their actual rating (6). This can be attributed to a variety of factors including: (a) willingness to look through periods of stronger or weaker activity where appropriate; (b) grid metrics do not capture our expectation of lower raw material costs and their benefit to margins and (c) liquidity concerns such as generating cash from working capital in a downturn are not fully captured by the grid. 18 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody's Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical IndustryAppendix A: Global Chemical Industry Methodology Factor Grid Weight Factor 1: Business Profile a) Business Position Assessment Factor 2: Size & Stability a) Revenue (Billions of US$) b) # of Divisions of Equal Size c) Stability of EBITDA Factor 3: Cost Position a) EBITDA Margin b) ROA – EBIT / Assets Factor 4: Leverage / Financial Policies * a) Current Debt / Capital b) Debt / EBITDA Factor 5: Financial Strength * a) EBIT DA / Interest Expense b) Retained Cash Flow / Debt c) Free Cash Flow / Debt 9. 09% 9. 09% 27. 28% 9. 09% 9. 09% 9. 09% 18. 19% 9. 09% 9. 09% 18. 9% 9. 09% 9. 09% 27. 28% 9. 09% 9. 09% 9. 09% ? 20. 0x ? 65. 0% ? 40. 0% 15. 0x – 20. 0x 45. 0% – 65. 0% 25. 0% – 40. 0% 10. 0x – 15. 0x 30. 0% – 45. 0% 15. 0% – 25. 0% 5. 0x – 10. 0x 20. 0% – 30. 0% 8. 0% – 15. 0% 2. 0x – 5. 0x 10. 0% – 20. 0% 4. 0% – 8. 0% 1. 0x – 2. 0x 5. 0% – 10. 0% 0. 5% – 4. 0% 0. 5 – 1. 0x 1. 0% – 5. 0% 0. 0 – 0. 5% < 0. 5x < 1. 0% < 0. 0% < 15. 0% < 0. 50x 15. 0% – 25. 0% 0. 50x – 1. 50x 25. 0% – 35. 0% 1. 50x – 2. 25x 35. 0% – 50. 0% 2. 25x – 3. 00x 50. 0% – 70. 0% 3. 00x – 4. 00x 70. 0% – 80. 0% 4. 00x – 6. 00x 80. 0% – 95. % 6. 00 – 8. 00x ? 95. 0% ? 8. 00x ? 30. 0% ? 25. 0% 20. 0% – 30. 0% 15. 0% â €“ 25. 0% 15. 0% – 20. 0% 10. 0% – 15. 0% 10. 0% – 15. 0% 7. 0% – 10. 0% 8. 0% – 10. 0% 4. 0% – 7. 0% 4. 0% – 8. 0% 2. 0% – 4. 0% 1. 0% – 4. 0% 0. 5% – 2. 0% < 1. 0% < 0. 5% ? $50. 0 8 > 2. 0% $20. 0 – $50. 0 6 to 7 2. 0% – 6. 0% $10. 0 – $20. 0 5 6. 0% – 12. 0% $5. 0 – $10. 0 4 12. 0% – 20. 0% $1. 0 – $5. 0 2 or 3 20. 0% – 30. 0% $0. 2 – 1. 0 1 or 2 30. 0% – 40. 0% $0. 1 – $0. 2 1 40. 0% – 60. 0% < $0. 1 0. 5 ? 60. 0% ? 6. 0 4. 5 – 6. 0 3. 5 – 4. 5 2. 5 – 3. 5 1. 5 – 2. 5 0. – 1. 5 0. 5 – 0. 5 < – 0. 5 Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B Caa Ca * Where appropriate net adjusted debt may be used (see discussion Cash Balances and Net Debt Considerations) 19 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating Methodology Moody's Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry Appendix B: Methodology Grid-Implied Ratings Overall Grid Implied Rating Issuer Moody's Rating Business Profile Size & Stability # of Divisions of Equal Size Baa Aa Aa Aa Aa A A B A Baa Ba Aa Ba B Ba B Caa Ba B Ba Cost PositionLeverage / Financial Policies EBITDA/ Interest Expense (3 Yr) Avg Aaa A A Aaa A Ba Baa Aaa A Baa A A B Ba B Ba B Ba B Ca Financial Strength Retained Cash Flow/ Debt (3 Yr Avg) Aaa A Baa A Ba Ba Ba Aaa A Baa Baa Baa B Ba B Ca Ba Ba Ba Caa Free Cash Flow/ Debt (3 Yr Avg) Ca Baa Ba Ca Ca Ba Ba Aa B B Ba Ba Ca Ba Ba Ca Ba Ca Ba Ca Business Position Assessment Shin-Etsu Chemical Company Ltd BASF (SE) E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Revenue (Billions of US$) A Aaa Aa Ba Baa Aa Aa Baa A Baa A Aaa Baa Baa Ba Ba Baa A Ba Baa Stability of EBITDA Baa A Baa Ba Baa A Aa Ca Baa Ba Ba Baa Ba Ba A Baa Ca Ba Ba BaEBITDA Margin % (3 Year Avg) Aaa A A Baa Baa A Baa Aaa Baa A Baa Baa A Aa A A Baa Ba B Ba ROA – EBIT / Assets (3 Yr Avg) A A A Ba Ba Ba Ba Aaa A A A A Baa A Baa A Baa Ba Ba Ba Current Debt/Capital Aaa Baa Ba A Ba Baa Baa Baa Baa Ba Ba Ba B Caa Caa Caa Ba B Caa Ca Debt/ EBITDA (3 Yr Avg) Aaa Aa Baa A Ba Ba Ba Aa A Baa Baa Baa Ba Ba B B B B B Ca Aa3 A1 A2 A2 A3 A3 Baa1 Baa1 Baa1 Baa2 Baa2 Baa3 Ba1 Ba2 Ba3 Ba3 B1 B1 B1 B3 A1 A1 A3 Baa1 Baa3 Baa1 Baa1 A2 Baa1 Baa2 Baa2 A3 Ba3 Ba1 Ba1 Ba3 B1 Ba3 B1 B2 Aa Aa Aa A Aa Aa A A Ba A Baa Aa B Baa A Baa Ca Baa B Baa Kaneka Corporation Teijin Limited Bayer AG Akzo Nobel N.V. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan LG Chem, Ltd. Eastman Chemical Company Yara International ASA Dow Chemical Company (The) Braskem SA Celanese Corporation Nalco Company ISP Chemco LLC NOVA Chemicals Corporation Huntsman Corporation PolyOne Corporation Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. Positive Outlier Negative Outlier For illustrative purposes most financial metrics used the last three full fiscal years of reported data FYs 2006, 2007 and 2008 20 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? M oody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating MethodologyMoody's Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry Appendix C: Observations and Outliers for Grid Mapping Factor 1 – Business Profile The majority of positive outliers for business profile are associated with companies whose financial strength, financial policy measures or liquidity are weakly positioned, providing offsets that are more consistent with the overall ratings. Factor 1: Business Profile Issuer Shin-Etsu Chemical Company Ltd BASF (SE) E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Kaneka Corporation Teijin Limited Bayer AG Akzo Nobel N. V. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.LG Chem, Ltd. Eastman Chemical Company Yara International ASA Dow Chemical Company (The) Braskem SA Celanese Corporation Nalco Company ISP Chemco LLC NOVA Chemicals Corporation Huntsman Corporation PolyOne Corporation Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. Positive Outlier Rating Aa3 A1 A2 A2 A3 A3 Baa1 Baa1 Ba a1 Baa2 Baa2 Baa3 Ba1 Ba2 Ba3 Ba3 B1 B1 B1 B3 Business Position Assessment Aa Aa Aa A Aa Aa A A Ba A Baa Aa B Baa A Baa Ca Baa B Baa Negative Outlier 21 December 2009 ? Rating Methodology ? Moody’s Global Corporate Finance – Global Chemical Industry Rating MethodologyMoody's Global Corporate Finance Global Chemical Industry Factor 2 – Size & Stability Here the majority of positive outliers for revenue are associated with companies whose financial strength, financial policy measures or liquidity are relatively weakly positioned, providing offsets that are more consistent with the overall ratings. The negative outliers are largely related to the stability of EBITDA metric and reflect the volatility of cash flows in certain companies and sectors due to unprecedented high raw material prices and the significant global economic downturn in 2008.Factor 2: Size & Stability Revenue (Billions of US$) A Aaa Aa Ba Baa Aa Aa Baa A Baa A Aaa Baa Baa Ba Ba Baa A Ba Baa Issuer Shin-Etsu Chemical Company Ltd BASF (SE) E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Rating Aa3 A1 A2 A2 A3 A3 Baa1 Baa1 Baa1 Baa2 Baa2 Baa3 Ba1 Ba2 Ba3 Ba3 B1 B1 B1 B3 # of Divisions of Equal Size Baa Aa Aa Aa Aa A A B A Baa Ba Aa Ba B Ba B Caa Ba B Ba Stability of EBITDA Baa A Baa Ba Baa A Aa Ca Baa Ba Ba Baa Ba Ba A Baa Ca Ba Ba Ba Kaneka Corporation Teijin Limited Bayer AG Akzo Nobel N. V. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. LG Chem, Ltd.Eastman Chemical Company Yara International ASA Dow Chemical Company (The) Braskem SA Celanese Corporation Nalco Company ISP Chemco LLC NOVA Chemicals Corporation Huntsman Corporation PolyOne Corporation Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. Positive Outlier Negative Outlier 22 December 2009 ? Rating

Solomons Temple essays

Solomons Temple essays Solomon's temple was constructed around 966 BC, at Mount Moria, out of the finest wood and metals. The temple remained there for almost four hundred years when it was destroyed by the army of Nabuchodonozor in 586 BC. In Hebrew, it is called Bet Yehovah, meaning "house of Jehovah", the New Testament calls it oikos, meaning "the house", and in Latin it was called cella, meaning "the most holy place of the temple". The temple was constructed on the highest point in the land, surrounded by courts and royal palaces. The story of the temple begins with King Solomon's father, King David. He commanded that all of his people should be counted. One day, he saw an angel, sent by God, to strike down all of the people as a punishment for David's pride. King David repented and bought the land where he saw the angel. He gathered treasures from foreign lands and his people to build a great temple to God, but his son Solomon did the actual construction. He went to Hiram, King Tyre in Phoenicia to hire workers since the Jews were not skilled in the arts. He hired experts in masonry, brass working and carpentry. The measurement used to construct the temple was the cubit. Even though there are many different translations of exactly how long a cubit is, my research shows that it was roughly one foot, five and three fourth inches. Construction of the temple was finally completed seven and a half years after it started with a dedication from King Solomon. The interior of the temple had two chambers, which were not equal in length. The height of both chambers was twenty cubits, however the first chamber was longer by twenty cubits. The first one was called the hekal, which means "Holy Place". Inside this room was a golden table that priests would place the loaves of proposition on every Sunday. There were also five candles on both sides of the room. These candles were made of pure gold and were each fueled by seven oil lamps. To the E...

Top 5 Jobs in the Southwest

Top 5 Jobs in the Southwest If you’re looking for a career change (or a change of scenery!),   here are some of the fastest-growing jobs for 2016 in the southwestern part of the united states, a region  that  according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) includes Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Home to a number of vibrant and diverse cultures from Santa Fe to Houston to New Orleans, the Southwestern part of the country is also a hotbed of growth and renewal in a number of industries. if you have a taste for the spicy (steaming tex-mex plates or New Mexico’s famous hatch chili peppers, anyone?) and are looking for a career jumpstart, definitely consider this region.1. Java DeveloperAustin, TX, is one of the growing tech start-up hubs putting the southwest on the map. it also has some old-school tech flavor as well: IBM, Dell, Google, and Facebook all have outposts in the region. one of the fastest-growing positions in the region is for java developers, who develop an d refine code specifically for the java programming language across different platforms.Developers have a median salary of $97,990, and the field is likely to expand by at least 17% per the BLS.2. Health Services ManagerLike everywhere else in the nation, the Southwest is seeing a booming healthcare industry as the population ages and insurance coverage gets more complex. and while you might think of medical professionals like nurses and physician assistants as the primary career path in the industry, there’s also the administrative arm, as well. Health services managers are not directly involved in patient medical care, but they work with the patients and families to plan, direct, and coordinate health services. They can advise on insurance coverage issues, and ensure that patients and medical facilities are up to date on changes in healthcare regulations and technology.The median salary for this role is $92,810 per year, with 17% growth expected in the near future.3. Oil/Ga s Truck DriverThe Southwestern part of the U.S. is home to much of the country’s energy industry, which includes some of the largest oil reserves and refineries. this calls for specialized truck drivers to transport oil and related materials. Truck driving in general requires on-the-job experience rather than specific degrees, but oil and gas driving jobs may require additional hazardous material licensing.The median salary for truck drivers is $38,200, and the field is expected to grow by at least 11% in the coming years. These specialized drivers will continue to be in high demand as the nation’s energy needs continue to grow and change.4. Medical AssistantIn a hectic medical office or hospital, the medical assistants are often the busiest people around. medical assistants may be called on to help with administrative tasks (processing patient records, receiving patients) or clinical ones (taking vital signs, preparing equipment, handling samples for testing). In addi tion to a high school diploma, this role often calls for additional certification, depending on the state.The median salary is $29,960, and the field is expected to grow by at least 23% in the near future.5. Personal Financial AdvisorWith the realities of housing, student loans, and healthcare coverage growing more complex all the time, the need for personal financial advisors is definitely expanding. Financial advisors work with clients to create personal financial plans for investments, insurance, mortgages, education, taxes, and retirement planning.One of the quickest-growing industries in the southwest, overall demand for these advisors is expected to grow by an astounding 30% by 2022. This position typically requires a bachelor’s degree, and the median salary is $81,060.So what do you think? Is a career change with a Southwestern flair on deck for you?

Thinking and Decision Making Paper Term Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Thinking and Decision Making - Term Paper Example Generally, the reasoning put emphasis on the intellectual aspect of thinking. In addition, reasoning using ideas and meanings enables people to come to conclusions in the form of decisions. In thinking, analyzing the ideas and meanings in different ways involves elements of thought, generating reasoning, and leading to conclusion. The elements of thought include purpose, problem, conclusions, facts, assumptions, concepts, implications, and point of view (Paul & Elder, 2006). People think differently with some thinking systematically being referred to as analytical thinkers, whereas others think intuitively. Generally, people think with either the right or left hemisphere of brain dominance, though scholars encourage use of both hemispheres. According to Marquis & Huston (2008), people with the upper-left- brain dominance are analytical thinkers who like to work with factual data and numbers solving problems in a logical and rational way, while people with the lower-left-brain dominan ce are very organized and detail oriented, and like to work in a stable environment, value safety and security over risking. (p. 16) Based on the brain dominance, four different thinking styles exist, but this paper will discuss only three. Logical Thinking Thinking logically and selecting reasoning fallacies from one’s thinking and other’s thinking is the basis of critical thinking. ... Deductive reasoning involves use of syllogism, which is a three-step form of reasoning with two premises and a conclusion. There are three classes of syllogisms: the categorical, the hypothetical, and the disjunctive syllogisms. Categorical Syllogisms A categorical syllogism is an argument that involves statements that either affirm or deny that a subject is a member of a certain class or has certain property (Kirby & Goodpaster, 2007, Pg.157). An example of categorical syllogism is as follows: MAJOR PREMISE—All our teachers are tall MINOR PREMISE—Tom is one of our teachers CONCLUSION—Tom is tall. Tall is the predicate in this case because it is the property or class given to the subject found in premise and conclusion. Indeed, syllogisms are valid when the argument from premises to conclusion is accurate. Hypothetical Syllogisms A pure hypothetical syllogism is one in which the two premises, and the conclusion are hypothetical or conditional, and they normally t ake the form â€Å"if-then statements† (Kirby & Goodpaster, 2007, P.184). Disjunctive Syllogisms This is the kind of syllogism that involves use of â€Å"either† or â€Å"or† statements. Reasoning error of affirming a nonexclusive disjunct using â€Å"or† in a nonexclusive manner sometimes involves disjunctive syllogism. Inductive thinking normally â€Å"begins with a set of evidence or observations about some members of a class, or about some events† (Kirby & Goodpaster, 2007, P.197). Based on the evidence or observations, one makes a conclusion regarding other members of the class or about some events. The conclusion of inductive reasoning is normally highly probable, as they do not follow the observations with certainty. Scientific thinking Scientific thinking involves a structured way of reasoning