The proposal sounds credible because the writers have already begun their secondary research. Readers are reluctant to approve proposals unless they are sure that the writers have at least begun their research.

Following the recommendation from Dr. Bremerton, the writers start by outlining the secondary research they plan to do. The logic is obvious: if they are to present sensible recommendations, they need to understand their subject.

By stating that they know that their sources are a mixture of different kinds of information, not all of which are equally useful for every kind of question that needs to be answered, the writers suggest that they are careful analysts.

The writers show that they have applied the insights they gathered from their secondary research. Now they propose doing primary research to determine whether the RRMC clinical staff share the attitudes of clinical staff across the country. The logic is clear: if they do, the hospital administrators will know that they can rely on the national data.

The writers cite their sources throughout the proposal.