| FIN-350 |
| Criteria | Percentage | 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | 2: Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) | 3: Satisfactory (75.00%) | 4: Good (85.00%) | 5: Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Group 1 | 100.0% |
| Analysis of the Favorability of Liquidity, Effectiveness, Leverage, and Profitability | 25.0% | Analysis of the favorability of liquidity, effectiveness, leverage, and profitability is not present. | Analysis of the favorability of liquidity, effectiveness, leverage, and profitability is under-developed. Analysis is based on mostly inaccurate calculations of relevant ratios. | Analysis of the favorability of liquidity, effectiveness, leverage, and profitability is mostly developed. Analysis is based on somewhat accurate calculations of relevant ratios. | Analysis of the favorability of liquidity, effectiveness, leverage, and profitability is well developed. Analysis is based on mostly accurate calculations of relevant ratios. | Analysis of the favorability of liquidity, effectiveness, leverage, and profitability is well developed and thorough. Analysis is based on accurate calculations of relevant ratios. |
| Evaluation of Financial Strength (C:5.3) | 25.0% | Evaluation of financial strength is not present. | Evaluation of the financial strength of the organization is included but not developed or supported; evidence is lacking. | Evaluation of the financial strength of the organization is sound and solid; ideas are present but not particularly well developed or supported; some evidence, but usually of a generalized nature, is presented. | Evaluation of the financial strength of the organization is well presented and argued; ideas are detailed, developed, and supported with mostly specific evidence and details. | Evaluation of the financial strength of the organization is extremely well presented and argued; ideas are detailed, well developed, and supported with specific evidence and facts, as well as examples and specific details. |
| Evaluation of Efficiency and Effectiveness (C:3.1) | 25.0% | Evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness is not present. | Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization is included but not well developed or supported; evidence is lacking. | Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization is sound and solid; ideas are present but not particularly well developed or supported; some evidence, but usually of a generalized nature, is presented. | Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization is well presented and argued; ideas are detailed, developed, and supported with mostly specific evidence and details. | Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization is extremely well presented and argued; ideas are detailed, well developed, and supported with specific evidence and facts, as well as examples and specific details. |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | 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. |
| Argument Logic and Construction | 8.0% | 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. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | 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. |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 3.0% | 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. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 2.0% | 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. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
dignedeb
Benchmark-FinancialstatementRubric.xlsx
