How to write a competent research paper

An argumentative paper is between 10-15 pages long, including the title page and
references page(s).

Use your thesis and the outline below to help build your paper. The outline below is
meant to help you structure your essay, but it is not required.

An outline

1. The introduction to your essay:

o Be sure to write a strong introduction.
o Be sure to write a strong thesis statement.
2. The body of your essay:
o Body paragraph(s) for each supporting point from your thesis in the order
they appear in your thesis.
o Each main point should have sufficient, relevant, and credible research to
support it.
o Use every source (at least seven) from your reference list.
o Cite your sources and use in-text citations within the outline of your body
where they best support your ideas. Appendix B is helpful in crafting in-text
citations, especially the APA citation wizard.
o For example:
 Body Point 1: Sentence that addresses point one of the thesis.
 Supporting evidence (with in-text citations)
 Body Point 2: Sentence that addresses point 2 of the thesis.
 Supporting evidence with (in-text citations)
 Body Point 3: Sentence that addresses point 3 of the thesis
 Supporting evidence with (in-text citations)
o The conclusion to your essay should reiterate your main point (thesis
statement).
o Your reference page with 1-1 correspondence to the in-text citations in
the body of the outline. For a one-stop guide to APA citations and
reference entries, you'll find Appendix B very helpful.
If you need additional assistance creating, revising, and polished your draft, you can
review additional learning material in Appendix E very helpful.

NOTE: You are writing a formal academic paper. Eliminate all personal pronouns, write
in third-person, and clean up all grammar mistakes. Appendix A will be helpful in this
editing process.

You can also review the sample Task 2 in Module 2.

Sample Final Paper:

Task 2 sample: Final paper

Click on the highlighted areas below to learn more about the different aspects that have
come together to create a final research paper.

TINY HOMES MAKE GOOD SENSE

Tiny Homes Make Good Sense

Jane Doe

TINY HOMES MAKE GOOD SENSE

Tiny Homes Make Good Sense

The definition of a tiny home would vary from one person's opinion to another, but it is generally

thought to be the smallest space required to meet one's needs in a house. Some do not want tiny

homes around and have set minimum size standards which prohibit them, even though such laws have

been determined to be unconstitutional (Shafer, 2009). With the many advantages that tiny homes

offer, it makes no sense to discourage them. Research suggests that zoning laws in the United States
should allow construction of tiny homes because they are more affordable than larger homes, they

reduce resource consumption, they use less energy and they help people simplify their lives.

Tiny homes are more affordable than large houses because they cost less to build. People save a lot

of money when they choose to build a small house instead of a large one. Ben and Sarina Speed of

Maine proved that with their 640 square foot, two-story home. Their construction costs amounted to

only $55,000. John Gordon, architect and 2006 winner of the Maine State Housing Authority's

Mainestream Green Home Design Contest really liked the Speed's choice to build such a small house. He

would like to see his clients build better by making similar choices (Idlebrook, 2008).

Architects and designers in other parts of the country such as home designer, Dragana Vlatkovic,

the founder of dv design in New York, have already seen their clients make similar choices. Five of the

homes Vlatkovic has designed in the past three years have been under 1,000 square feet, because, she

says, people are realizing comfort does not have to be sacrificed when building small homes and doing

so means a lot of savings on construction costs (Bender, 2009). Published reports indicate many other

homebuilders around the country such as KB Home, John Laing and Warmington Homes are following

suit. Perhaps this is in response to a survey conducted by the National Association of Home Builders in

2008 that indicated over 60 percent of potential home purchasers would rather buy

TINY HOMES MAKE GOOD SENSE

a smaller house with a greater number of amenities than a larger house with fewer amenities (Bender,

2009). As more customers realize how much money they can save by building a tiny home rather than

an average sized larger home and still get the features that they want, the demand is increasing for

these homes and so builders are obliging.

 However, people do not have to build a new home to benefit from the affordability of tiny homes

because statistics show a significant savings to current homeowners who trade down to a smaller house.

Jean Chatzky, financial editor for NBC's Today Show, encourages people to calculate how much savings

they could realize by selling a large home and buying a smaller home. An example she describes is of a

home worth $700,000 with a mortgage balance of $315,000 sold and replaced with a home valued at

$525,000 and a $325,000 mortgage (Chatzky, 2005). She says this would save a person $250 per month

on mortgage payments and leave $140,000 to invest, which could grow to about $500,000 in one's

investment portfolio after twenty years. She notes this example has not even accounted for the

additional savings on property taxes and other bills associated with a home (Chatzky, 2005). If those

items were added in, the savings would be even more impressive.

Statistics also demonstrate the potential savings in three cities across the country, Sacramento,

California; Kansas City, Missouri and Scotch Plains, New Jersey, of moving from a 3,200squarefoot to a

2,400squarefoot house. The total yearly savings on the combination of mortgage, property taxes,

utilities, maintenance and insurance ranges from $6,457 to $16,819 (Chatzky, 2005). Although the

amount saved varies greatly depending on location, all the numbers show significant savings to

homeowners who trade down to a smaller home. Even more staggering savings could be realized by

trading down to a tiny home much smaller than the conventional sized homes discussed in the previous

examples.

TINY HOMES MAKE GOOD SENSE

Moreover, a tiny home that is inexpensive enough to purchase without a mortgage will save the

buyer significant money because of no interest paid.According to Jay Shafer (2009), people spend thirty
to forty percent of their income on mortgage payments and that figure is before adding maintenance

costs, insurance and taxes (p. 28). Even though home mortgages use simple interest, the effect to the

borrower is more like compound interest because the term of the loan is usually very long and the

amount of money borrowed is very high (Salomon, 2010, p. 57). As a result, the borrower ends up

paying interest that is two to three times what they owe the lender in original debt (Salomon, 2010, p.

57). In other words, because the average home is so large and costs so much more than most people

can afford to buy with cash, home buyers have to pay significantly more than the purchase price for

their homes over the duration of the loan. On the other hand, tiny homes are so inexpensive that many

home purchasers could afford to buy one without getting a loan at all.

In addition, the current high cost of big houses limits the number of people who can afford to buy a

home and threatens the availability of affordable, small housing. Shafer (2009) reports that more than

40 percent of U.S. families cannot afford to buy a home (p. 44). Foreman & Lee (2005) discuss the

ramifications of building so many large houses in the U.S., and one of those is that not many people can

afford to buy them (p. 140). As the average size of homes gets bigger, it follows that the average price

of homes increases. The more large homes there are, the fewer small homes there are by comparison.

By consequence, a smaller percentage of the homes available are affordable to many people.

Ruth Knack (1999) refers to this dilemma as she talks about city planners that hate to see their

community losing affordable housing because of the bigger houses replacing them. Many older small

homes are being torn down and replaced with much larger and more modern looking new homes.

TINY HOMES MAKE GOOD SENSE

5
But, the planners must also consider the residents' desires to build those large homes. For instance, in

Vancouver, British Columbia, neighbors complained that zoning was out of sync when people would

come into established neighborhoods, tear down an older home or put on a large addition and stretch

the building of homes to the maximum sizes allowed by the current zoning laws. The U.S. should look to

their solution of coming up with new regulations that stated new construction must be compatible with

existing homes adjacent to them. Similarly, residents in Lincoln, Massachusetts, a community that is a

suburb of Boston, are afraid of what "mansionization" will do to the character of their town. They think

it will mean the loss of affordable housing among other things (Knack, 1999). If zoning laws in the U.S.

allowed construction of tiny homes, the older homes that are being torn down could be replaced with

smaller, more affordable homes. Another possibility is that those older homes would not be torn down

in the first place, but rather just fixed up. The hope is that small, well built homes would not be

considered as inferior and the push to replace them with large, lesser quality homes would end.

Next, research suggests construction of tiny homes instead of large homes reduces resource

consumption because tiny homes do not require as much lumber to build.Current demand for large

homes in the U.S. forces clear cutting of six million acres of forests per year to provide enough lumber

for their construction (Foreman & Lee, 2005, p. 140141). About five acres of timber must be cut down to

provide the lumber to build just one average size house in the U.S. (Foreman & Lee, 2005, p. 140).

Furthermore, much of the hardwood used for wall paneling, cabinets and flooring in the construction of

U.S. homes comes from tropical forests in Latin America, South America and Asia and is so irresponsibly

obtained that those tropical forests will never fully recover from the damage (Foreman & Lee, 2005, p.

140). Therefore, reducing the average size of the American home could positively affect the

environment by reducing the consumption of the resource of lumber. Allowing the

TINY HOMES MAKE GOOD SENSE

6
construction of tiny homes is a significant way to reduce the average size of houses in the U.S.

Statistics also demonstrate that tiny homes generate far less waste in construction compared to the

average large home in the United States. Building related construction and demolition is the single

largest source of waste in the country (Tucker, 2012, p. 2). During the construction of just one average

size home in the U.S., between two and seven tons of waste is generated (Tucker, 2012, p. 3). Moreover,

the size of the median home in the U.S. more than doubled since 1950 while the number of people that

occupy it was reduced by more than 25 percent (Shafer, 2009, p. 26). There is no apparent need for

houses to be larger since the occupancy has actually decreased. Conversely, one could argue that

average home size should logically decrease as the average number of occupants decreases. If the size

of the average home is significantly reduced, obviously the building related construction waste will be

significantly reduced. Tiny homes can make major headway toward doing just that.

Moreover, leading experts agree the most important consideration in reducing resources used in

house construction is to reduce the size of the houses being built (Shafer, 2009, p. 28; Wilson &

Boehland, 2005). Often designers and builders will devote much care and attention to using the most

environmentally friendly building materials and techniques in their efforts to be "green" and yet most of

the time they ignore the far greater impact that reducing the size of the dwelling could have on reducing

resource consumption (Wilson & Boehland, 2005). Shafer (2009) points out this irony so well when he

states, "Under no circumstances does a 3,000square foot house for two qualify as 'green.' All the solar

gain and reclaimed materials in the world can never change that" (p. 26).

Statistics also demonstrate a tiny home uses less energy than a large home. Therefore, the best

way to reduce energy use is to occupy a tiny home (Idlebrook, 2008). That is what the Speeds concluded

after they looked into the idea of building a home that would be powered entirely by solar
TINY HOMES MAKE GOOD SENSE

panels to meet their desire to use minimal fossil fuels. It turned out the initial cost to build such a home

was more than they could afford, so after extensive research, they decided a tiny home was the answer

for energy efficiency (Idlebrook, 2008). They are able to heat their entire house with a woodstove and

their electric bills average only twenty dollars a month (Idlebrook, 2008). Dick Brown, who used to

manage a program whose goal was to help Maine residents cut their electric bills, was amazed that the

couple's electric bill could be so low and he felt that is the smallest amount of electricity that somebody

could use (Idlebrook, 2008).

Furthermore, today's overly large homes demand large amounts of energy to make the materials

used in the construction of the house in the first place (Foreman & Lee, 2005, p. 141). Then, the bills for

heating and cooling the large house are so enormous they consume as much as 20 percent of the

occupants' income (Foreman & Lee, p. 141). In contrast, many tiny homes are created to take advantage

of solar gain, natural ventilation and lighting resulting in reduced energy demands thanks to good design

as well as less space that needs to be heated, cooled and lighted (Tucker, 2012). It makes sense that tiny

homes use less energy to construct as well as heat, cool and illuminate not only because they are

smaller, but because those who design them set out to make an efficient home from the beginning. In

contrast, many large homes are designed with mainly extravagance in mind. The goal of energy

efficiency is often not even considered.

Besides, studies show even moderately energy efficient tiny homes save considerably more energy

than the most energy efficient large homes (Wilson & Boehland, 2005). Data about heating and cooling

was collected from six homes of various sizes and energy standards, three in Boston and three in St.
Louis (Wilson & Boehland, 2005). The studies found that a mediocre house in energy efficiency with R13

walls and R19 ceilings that is 1,500 square feet will still use far less energy for heating and

TINY HOMES MAKE GOOD SENSE

cooling than a 3,000 square foot house with excellent energy efficiency of R19 walls and R30 ceilings

(Wilson & Boehland, 2005). So, if energy efficiency is the goal in a house, it is much better accomplished

with almost any tiny home versus almost any large home.

Moreover, leading experts agree that tiny homes help people simplify their lives. One way they do

this is by enabling people to properly balance their lives (Adams, 2008). The rapid growth in the size of

the American home over the past fifty years or so seems to point to a growing appetite for material

possessions. The accumulation of excesses in the form of large homes has backfired for many people

hurt by the mortgage crisis. For many, making the mortgage payment has become such a financial

burden that it takes away from enjoying other things in life. By contrast, tiny home occupants are better

able to balance their lives because they have more time and money to spend on areas of their lives such

as family, recreation, fitness, etc. rather than working all the time just to be able to make a big mortgage

payment every month (Adams, 2008).

Another way that tiny homes make life simpler is that they are easier to manage than large homes.

Bender (2009) points out that living can be even more comfortable in a tiny home than a big one if it is

well designed, because there is no need to clean, furnish and heat unused space. Some people that live

in tiny homes have found that well planned smaller space is better suited to their needs and is more

manageable because there is not any wasted space (Chatzky, 2005). In tiny homes there is less space

that has to be painted, fewer windows to wash and less floor space to vacuum or sweep and mop
(Foreman & Lee, pgs. 38, 40). These things seem obvious, but that is precisely the point. It is often not

until people have made the choice to downsize their homes that they realize how much easier to

manage a tiny home can be.

Furthermore, tiny homes help people simplify their lives because they must get rid of

TINY HOMES MAKE GOOD SENSE

possessions they do not need in order to be able to fit all their belongings in tiny homes. People who

have pared down and made the move into a tiny home say they realized they did not need all the stuff

they used to have and since getting rid of it, they are happier. They say when deciding what to keep and

what to get rid of, the item being evaluated must have two or more of the following characteristics in

order to be kept: beauty, monetary value, usefulness or sentimental value (Bender 2009). Foreman &

Lee (2005) describe a feeling of freedom and relief from sorting through their stuff and decluttering

their lives until they had just enough. They say they have gained a deep sense of satisfaction from the

process (p. 115). Salomon (2010) says tiny home dwellers do better with less space because they must

only keep things they appreciate and have time to maintain. In so doing, they have the energy necessary

to enjoy what they have chosen to keep (p. 21, 22).

Finally, studies show tiny homes provide all the factors necessary for home satisfaction. A large

living space had nothing to do with the five factors that were identified in studies as necessary for home

satisfaction: contact with neighbors, privacy, flexible usage, opportunities for personalization and

security. All of these factors can be realized by living in a tiny home. Furthermore, another study found

that people were not more satisfied in a large home. It did, however, find a greater feeling of security
and more self-esteem in tiny home owners because of their ability to own an affordable living space

(Adams, 2008). Thus, large homes do not necessarily satisfy; tiny homes do satisfy.

Tiny homes make good sense. First of all, they may be the best answer to the lack of affordable

housing in the U.S. In addition, it goes without saying that a tiny home uses fewer resources to build and

also less energy to operate than a large home. Next, perhaps the most important positive effect that

tiny homes offer is their ability to help people simplify life by aiding in the identification of the bare

necessities. Limiting their possessions to those things then frees their finances and time to concentrate

on

TINY HOMES MAKE GOOD SENSE

10

what things are most important to them . Certainly, it is clear that zoning laws should not prevent tiny

homes and all these benefits they offer people.