PICX2013 Crisis Management and Disaster Relief

Assessment 1 – Risk Exercise by Rifat Mahmud

Submission date: 05-Apr-2020 02:35PM (UTC+1000) Submission ID: 1289827768 File name: 307303_Rifat_Mahmud_Assessment_1_-_Risk_Exercise_5556225_1122898366.docx (25.87K) Word count: 796 Character count: 4140

1

Economy of words

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

QM

FINAL GRADE

9/20 Assessment 1 – Risk Exercise GRADEMARK REPORT

GENERAL COMMENTS

Instructor

Rifat. See my comments on your paper for more specific feedback. In essence you had far to much focus on part 1 and it came at the expense of part 2. What you had in part 2 was good but it also needed a more academic support. Only having 1 academic source really restricted you in exploring other issues such as ISO, Qualitative or quantitatively information, human error and ambiguous inputs and outputs such as severity of risks can be subjective resulting in different interpretations. I didnt take any marks off for the risk rating.

Please do not take my comments as destructive but constructive. Im here to make you a better writer and critical thinker. My comments are in no way intended to be malicious or hurtful.

Kind regards Vince

PAGE 1

PAGE 2

Comment 1

R, I totally agree with all of this but, its not relevant. Interesting, but not relevant. Get to the point. You only have 750- words. Think economy of words.

Economy of words When you have a restrictive word limit then think 'economy of words'. Ask yourself, does this add anything to my paper? Does it advance my argument? If yes, how can I rephrase it to be more concise? How can I reconstruct it so it flows/reads better? Or ask yourself, as interesting as it may be is it DIRECTLY relevant to the issue or question? If not, cull it, delete it!

Comment 2

R. Im lost. What is your final rating??

PAGE 3

Comment 3

ok so which authors? Tell the reader R. I have no idea who or what you specifically mean

Comment 4

R, it only goes to a max of 25. You have multiplied and added the individual ratings. You dont do that. Im NOT going to penalise you for this so, dont worry about it. Its okay

Comment 5

ok R, good

PAGE 4

Comment 6

R, where is your academic support for all this?

Comment 7

R, totally agree but where is your academic support for all this? You must support your claims.

Comment 8

R, I had no idea this was the end. You would have been far better to cut down the first two sections and do more of part 2. At best this is about 500 words Im guessing

PAGE 5

RUBRIC: HAMPDEN BRIDGE

PART 2 (1) (25%)

HIGH DISTINCTION (20)

DISTINCTION (16)

CREDIT (13)

PASS (10)

FAIL (0)

RESEARCH (30%)

HIGH DISTINCTION (20)

DISTINCTION (16)

CREDIT (13)

PASS (10)

FAIL (0)

RA SYNTAX (10%)

0 / 20

0 / 20

Response to "How was completing the RMM helpful in evaluating the risk faced by the HB?" Degree to which level of academic research was applied and integrated. Evidence is appropriate.

Outstanding integration of wide range of evidence and all points are substantiated by primary resources

Excellent integration of evidence into material and primary sources used to support most points

Most points are supported by third party evidence

Some points are used but only of a basic nature

Little or no use of evidence to support content requirements

0 / 20

Degree to which level of academic research was applied and integrated. Evidence is appropriate.

Demonstrates a sophisticated engagement with the current literature, correctly identifying both the arguments that support the position taken, and successfully addressing concerns raised by different or opposing views. All sources are current and valid. Diverse sources directly relevant to the topic, including refereed academic journals, books and reports.

Demonstrates a solid engagement with the literature and acknowledges the concerns raised by alternative positions in the literature. Some sources are less directly relevant to topic. Diverse sources directly relevant to the topic, including refereed academic journals, books and reports.

Demonstrates a “for and against” approach to the literature, with some attempt to integrate and address the difference between these positions. Sources are in general less directly relevant to topic. Diverse sources directly relevant to the topic, including refereed academic journals, books and reports..

Demonstrates some supportive academic literature, but does not account for the different positions of authors within the ongoing debate within the discipline. Sources are generally poorly selected. Diverse sources directly relevant to the topic, including refereed academic journals, books and reports.

The paper does not demonstrate engagement with the relevant literature. Sources are of marginal quality. Fewer independent sources (not including text book, study guide or course readings).

0 / 20

Syntax is correct, concise & clear and spelling is correct

HIGH DISTINCTION (20)

DISTINCTION (16)

CREDIT (13)

PASS (10)

FAIL (0)

RM DETERMINAT (5%)

HIGH DISTINCTION (20)

DISTINCTION (16)

CREDIT (13)

PASS (10)

FAIL (0)

RA WORD LIMIT (5%)

HIGH DISTINCTION (20)

DISTINCTION (16)

CREDIT (13)

PASS (10)

FAIL (0)

PART 2 (2) (25%)

Very few (if any) grammatical errors. The meaning of each sentence is always clear and easily understood.

Few grammatical errors. Mostly the meaning of what is written is clear

Some grammatical errors. Generally the meaning of what is written is clear.

Many grammatical errors. At times the meaning of what is written is affected by these errors.

Numerous grammatical errors are present, and this affects the ability to understand the meaning of what is said

0 / 20

Gave a Risk Management Matrix Determination

Included with rating

Included with rating

Included with rating

Included with rating

Not included

0 / 20

Word limit is adhered to +/- 10%

Meets word limit

Meets word limit

Meets word limit

Meets word limit

Does not meet word limit

0 / 20

HIGH DISTINCTION (20)

DISTINCTION (16)

CREDIT (13)

PASS (10)

FAIL (0)

Response to " What were the limitations of using the RMM?" Degree to which level of academic research was applied and integrated. Evidence is appropriate.

Outstanding integration of wide range of evidence and all points are substantiated by primary resources

Excellent integration of evidence into material and primary sources used to support most points

Most points are supported by third party evidence

Some points are used but only of a basic nature

Little or no use of evidence to support content requirements