|
|
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
|
2
Less Than Satisfactory
65.00%
|
3
Satisfactory
75.00%
|
4
Good
85.00%
|
5
Excellent
100.00%
|
| 80.0 %Content |
|
| 25.0 % Health Care Financing: Market-Based |
Includes little knowledge about each component. Subject knowledge is not evident. Analysis of the criteria is not outlined or outlined poorly. Does not distinguish between advantages and disadvantages. |
Includes little knowledge about some components with few supporting details and examples. Little subject knowledge is evident. Ignores or superficially evaluates the criteria. Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Recognizes advantages and disadvantages without providing rationale. |
Includes knowledge about each component with supporting details and examples. Some subject knowledge is evident. Surface-level evaluation of the content is offered. Describes basic advantages and disadvantages. |
Includes essential knowledge about each component with supporting details and examples. Subject knowledge appears to be good. Analysis is direct, competent, and appropriate for the criteria. |
Covers each component in depth with extensive details and examples. Subject knowledge is excellent. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major points of the criteria. Draws warranted, judicious, nonfallacious conclusions. Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) and advantages and disadvantages, providing explicit examples and details. |
| 25.0 % Health Care Financing: Government-Financed |
Includes little knowledge about each component. Subject knowledge is not evident. Analysis of the criteria is not outlined or outlined poorly. Does not distinguish between advantages and disadvantages. |
Includes little knowledge about some components with few supporting details and examples. Little subject knowledge is evident. Ignores or superficially evaluates the criteria. Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Recognizes advantages and disadvantages without providing rationale. |
Includes knowledge about each component with supporting details and examples. Some subject knowledge is evident. Surface-level evaluation of the content is offered. Describes basic advantages and disadvantages. |
Includes essential knowledge about each component with supporting details and examples. Subject knowledge appears to be good. Analysis is direct, competent, and appropriate for the criteria. |
Covers each component in depth with extensive details and examples. Subject knowledge is excellent. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major points of the criteria. Draws warranted, judicious, nonfallacious conclusions. Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) and advantages and disadvantages, providing explicit examples and details. |
| 20.0 % Narrative |
Narrative does not address the assignment criteria and uses noncredible sources. |
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Narrative lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility as appropriate. |
Narrative is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. Presents minimal justification of claims. Argument supports the purpose logically, but not thoroughly. Sources used are credible as appropriate. |
Narrative shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims throughout. Reasoning is supportive. Most sources are authoritative as appropriate. |
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. Rationale is in-depth and supported by evidence. All sources are authoritative as appropriate. |
| 10.0 % Content Comprehension |
Content is incomplete or omits most of the requirements stated in the assignment criteria. |
Content is incomplete or omits some requirements stated in the assignment criteria. |
Content is complete but somewhat inaccurate and/or irrelevant. |
Content is comprehensive and accurate, and definitions are clearly stated. |
Content is comprehensive, accurate, and persuasive. Definitions are clearly stated. |
| 10.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 10.0 % Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) |
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately. |
Some distracting inconsistencies in language and/or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. |
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. |
The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly. |
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope. |
| 10.0 %Format |
|
| 10.0 % 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, 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. |
| 100 % Total Weightage |
