|
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 |
|
| 10.0 %Simulation Model |
The simulation model is highly inaccurate, unable to be understood in its format, or omitted. |
The simulation model is incomplete or unreasonable for the task. |
The simulation model is reasonable for the task. |
The simulation model is appropriate for the task. |
The simulation model is clear and purposefully chosen for the task. |
| 20.0 %Explanation of the Simulation Model |
The explanation of the simulation model is incomprehensible or omitted. |
The explanation of the simulation model is irrelevant or illogical. |
The explanation of the simulation model is understandable and adequate. |
The explanation of the simulation model is clear and logical. |
The explanation of the simulation model is substantial and thoughtful. |
| 20.0 %Recommendations for the Best Course of Action |
The recommendations for the best course of action are incomprehensible or omitted. |
The recommendations for the best course of action are irrelevant or illogical. |
The recommendations for the best course of action are understandable and reasonable. |
The recommendations for the best course of action are clear and sound. |
The recommendations for the best course of action are thorough and thoughtful. |
| 20.0 %Rationale |
The rationale is incomprehensible or omitted. |
The rationale ineffectively justifies the recommendations for the best course of action with weak support. |
The rationale broadly justifies the recommendations for the best course of action with relevant support. |
The rationale clearly justifies the recommendations for the best course of action with logical support. |
The rationale directly justifies the recommendations for the best course of action with compelling support. |
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose |
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. |
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. |
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. 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 progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument that 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 or sentence construction is used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. |
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. |
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 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
Sources are not documented. |
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| 100 %Total Weightage |
|
attachment_1attachment_1
attachment_2attachment_2
