|
1 Unsatisfactory 0.00%
|
2 Less Than Satisfactory 74.00%
|
3 Satisfactory 79.00%
|
4 Good 87.00%
|
5 Excellent 100.00%
|
70.0 %Content
|
|
40.0 %Reads and analyzes the Candler V. Persaud Case Study, answers the discussion prompts, and includes a detailed rationale for the answers.
|
Does not demonstrate understanding of the legal issues surrounding the lawsuit. Does not demonstrate critical thinking and analysis of the situation, and does not develop a rationale for answers.
|
Demonstrates only minimal understanding of the legal issues surrounding the lawsuit. Demonstrates only minimal abilities for critical thinking and analysis of the situation, and develops a weak rationale for the answers.
|
Demonstrates knowledge of the legal issues surrounding the lawsuit, but has some slight misunderstanding of the implications. Provides a basic idea of critical thinking and analysis for the situation and rationale. Does not include examples or descriptions.
|
Demonstrates acceptable knowledge of the legal issues surrounding the lawsuit (in your own words). Answers the questions and develops an acceptable rationale for the answers. Utilizes some examples.
|
Demonstrates thorough knowledge of the legal issues surrounding the lawsuit. Clearly describes the issues in the discussion prompts and develops a very strong rationale for answers. Introduces appropriate examples.
|
|
30.0 %Integrates information from outside resources into the body of paper.
|
Does not use references, examples, or explanations.
|
Provides some supporting examples, but minimal explanations and no published references.
|
Supports main points with examples and explanations, but fails to include published references to support claims and ideas.
|
Supports main points with references, explanations, and examples. Analysis and description is direct, competent, and appropriate of the criteria.
|
Supports main points with references, examples, and full explanations of how they apply. Thoughtfully, analyzes, evaluates and describes major points of the criteria.
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
7.0 %Assignment Development and Purpose
|
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
|
Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.
|
Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.
|
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
|
Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
|
|
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction
|
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
|
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
|
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
|
Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
|
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
|
|
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
|
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
|
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.
|
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.
|
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.
|
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
|
|
10.0 %Format
|
|
5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
|
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
|
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
|
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
|
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
|
All format elements are correct.
|
|
5.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style)
|
No reference page is included. No citations are used.
|
Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.
|
Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present
|
Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.
|
In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
|
|
|
|
|