National University Legalization of Direct to Consumer Adverts in the USA Essay

Missing or Not Complete 0 (0.00%) – 14 (14.00%)

No apparent use of class texts. No conversation with other authors.

Below Average 15 (15.00%) – 17 (17.00%)

Minimal use of class texts. Minimal use of primary text only. Missing or infrequent quotes or summary.

Average 18 (18.00%) – 19 (19.00%)

Paper responds in a meaningful way to the conversation created by primary text. Secondary sources used. Use of sources may be limited, excessive, or inaccurate. Common problems include dangling quotations, using quotations out of context, inaccurate or misleading summary, or lack of framing the conversation.

Good 20 (20.00%) – 22 (22.00%)

Paper frames issues at hand and finds a strong point to argue within the given conversation. Paper uses secondary sources accurately and judiciously to back up points and expand the conversation. There may be room for improvement in framing or supporting argument.

Excellent 23 (23.00%) – 25 (25.00%)

Paper makes a very strong and necessary point that adds to the conversation. Impeccable use of summary, quotations, and framing the conversation in both primary and secondary sources. Sources all used judiciously and properly.

Missing or Not Complete 0 (0.00%) – 14 (14.00%)

Paper lacks thesis. Organization incomplete, a series of notes, or no recognizable organization.

Below Average 15 (15.00%) – 17 (17.00%)

Weak thesis, to general or not arguable. Paper hastily put together, drifts from point to point without larger organization that ties into thesis.

Average 18 (18.00%) – 19 (19.00%)

Thesis may be too general, not arguable, or may be different from what the paper actually proves. Paper has a meaningful and logical organization, with introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion all filling their roles, but may lack in forecasting, leaving the reader lost at times. Lack of topic sentences and transition sentences.

Good 20 (20.00%) – 22 (22.00%)

Thesis is specific and predicts the organization and main points of the paper will prove. The organization takes us through those points, guiding the reader by using forecasting strategies. Introduction frames the argument succinctly and the conclusion directs the conversations for further inquiry. The thesis or organization may be a little cumbersome, plodding, or repetitive at times.

Excellent 23 (23.00%) – 25 (25.00%)

Paper makes a very strong and necessary point that adds to the conversation. Impeccable use of summary, quotations, and framing the conversation in both primary and secondary sources. Sources all used judiciously and properly. Thesis is specific, insightful, and predicts the paper’s main points. Organization moves flawlessly and the reader at no times feels lost. Paper uses metacommentary to further more basic forecasting strategies. Each paragraph of the paper fulfills its role and feels necessary.

Missing or Not Complete 0 (0.00%) – 14 (14.00%)

No attempts at revision from first draft.

Below Average 15 (15.00%) – 17 (17.00%)

Attempts at revision from first draft limited to surface changes. Little to no global revision.

Average 18 (18.00%) – 19 (19.00%)

Paper shows evidence of revision from rough draft. Revision may lack incorporating global revision suggestions including: refining thesis, changing organization, adding new sources, checking sources for accuracy, framing the conversation, using forecasting strategies, and any of the other class principles addressed in the class or by the instructor or peers. Paper corrects most minor surface errors.

Good 20 (20.00%) – 22 (22.00%)

Paper makes significant global revisions. Evidence of rethinking and redirecting the paper from the first to the second draft. Possible changes in organization, thesis statement, improvements in forecasting, addition of new sources or improvements in quoting, summarizing, or explaining initial sources.

Excellent 23 (23.00%) – 25 (25.00%)

Paper shows that the student is using the writing process as a thinking process, discovering and changing major points along the way to significant effect in improvement of the paper. Evidence the student does not settle for “good enough” even if the initial draft was solid.

Missing or Not Complete 0 (0.00%) – 14 (14.00%)

Major grammar and style issues that make the paper almost unreadable. No use of MLA in-text citation style.

Below Average 15 (15.00%) – 17 (17.00%)

Grammar and style issues that significantly impede the comprehension of the paper. Major errors in MLA citation style.

Average 18 (18.00%) – 19 (19.00%)

Paper is clear, but evidence of repeated misuse of some grammar rules: sentence fragments, run-ons, semi colon usage, agreement, homonym confusion, spelling, and passive voice, among other concerns. Paper makes small but consistent errors in MLA in-text citation style.

Good 20 (20.00%) – 22 (22.00%)

Paper makes an understandable amount of minor errors in grammar, style and citation as is expected in undergraduate coursework. Very few minor errors in MLA in-text citations, especially if the citation issue is obscure.

Excellent 23 (23.00%) – 25 (25.00%)

Paper is free of grammatical errors and uses impeccable grammar. Excellent us of MLA in-text citation style showing use of handbook when confronting difficult citations.