The final paper is essentially a 2-pager with a thyroid condition.  You look at a broader topic in greater depth.  For example, if you wrote a 2-page on a perfume ad, you'd write a final paper on perfume advertising (e.g., look at the different Calvin Klein ads and examine their differences and why they are done to have what effect on what audience;  look at blue-collar sitcoms (e.g., Rosanne) and sophisticated sitcoms (e.g., Frasier) and compare how they use the six rules of comedy; that sort of thing).  Here is an example I wrote to another student:
    You choose the message type you want to write about, and the way you want to analyze it. You can do advertising, or news, or a show, or a type of show, or a magazine, or a type of magazine, or compare magazines or shows or ads or...  The topic is wide open -- it's what you want to do.  Think of the final as a large 2-pager.  Include why the message type you've selected has been done -- what effect on the audience is intended.
    Remember today's look at soaps [I know you weren't there].  My analysis showed that soaps are a new and unique form of drama because of the way it uses action (from neoaristotelianism): this is my premise (I got it from watching soaps and thinking they were weird). I watched soaps and looked at how they use action and discovered that they never reach a climax, that the same things seem to happen over and over, that very little actually happens but everything is discussed to death, especially relationships. Then I determined why it uses action that way -- to appeal to an audience in a completely different way from all other forms of storytelling.  That audience is women.  Why would it be more appealing to women than men?  Because action in soaps uses women's communication style rather than men's (as discussed by Deborah Tannen), men's [conversation is to solve problems and/or establish a place in a heirarchy] being the way all other forms of storytelling uses action.  This is my evidence in support of my premise, thus my conclusion is that my premise is supported, not contradicted.  See how I did that?  That's the kind of thing I would like in your paper.