Who's Superior?

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 %Analyzes an ethical dilemma and evaluates whether the doctrine of “respondeat superior” would cause vicarious liability in the scenario.

Does not demonstrate understanding of the ethical dilemma or the responsibility of the surgeon. Does not demonstrate critical thinking and analysis of the liability issues.

Demonstrates only minimal understanding of the ethical dilemma or the responsibility of the surgeon. Demonstrates only minimal abilities for critical thinking and analysis of the liability issue. 

Demonstrates knowledge of the ethical dilemma and surgeon responsibility accurately, but has some slight misunderstanding of the scenario’s implications. Provides a basic idea of critical thinking and analysis. Does not include examples or descriptions.

Demonstrates knowledge of the main concepts regarding the ethical dilemma and “respondeat superior” (in your own words). Partially describes the surgeon’s responsibility and liability. Utilizes some examples.

Demonstrates thorough knowledge of the main concepts regarding the ethical dilemma and “respondeat superior” (in your own words). Clearly describes the surgeon’s responsibility and liability, and 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.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 

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.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 

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.

100 %Total Weightage