Week 3 Project - BUS3055

BUS3055 Week 2 Project Rubric Activity: Week 2 Project

Course: BUS3055-Business Law for Commercial Transactions SU01

Name: Sandra Villarreal

17 / 20

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–13) 13 points

Satisfactory (C range) (14–15) 15 points

Proficient (B range) (16–17) 17 points

Exemplary (A range) (18–20) 20 points

Criterion Score

Analyzed the facts

in one scenario

and developed

substantive

arguments and

recommendations

using legal cases

and scholarly

sources that

reflected an

understanding of

the course

material.

Did not identify the

facts or develop

substantive

arguments and

recommendations.

Unsupported with

research.

Identified facts, basic

arguments and

recommendations.

Lacked credible

research support.

Described the facts,

arguments and

recommendations.

Weakly supported

with research.

Analysis of the facts,

arguments and

recommendations

was compelling and

showed well-

developed logical

progression.

Well supported by

research.

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–13) 13 points

Satisfactory (C range) (14–15) 15 points

Proficient (B range) (16–17) 17 points

Exemplary (A range) (18–20) 20 points

Criterion Score

Analyzed the facts

and provided

detailed arguments

and

recommendations.

Sufficiently

supported with

research.

17 / 20

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–13) 13 points

Satisfactory (C range) (14–15) 15 points

Proficient (B range) (16–17) 17 points

Exemplary (A range) (18–20) 20 points

Criterion Score

Analyzed the facts

in one scenario

and developed

substantive

arguments and

recommendations

using legal cases

and scholarly

sources that

reflected an

understanding of

the course

material.

Did not identify the

facts or develop

substantive

arguments and

recommendations.

Unsupported with

research.

Identified facts, basic

arguments and

recommendations.

Lacked credible

research support.

Described the facts,

arguments and

recommendations.

Weakly supported

with research.

Analysis of the facts,

arguments and

recommendations

was compelling and

showed well-

developed logical

progression.

Well supported by

research.

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points

Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points

Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points

Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points

Criterion Score

Analyzed the facts

and provided

detailed arguments

and

recommendations.

Sufficiently

supported with

research.

Total 42 / 50

Overall Score

8 / 10

Criteria No Submission 0 points

Emerging (F through D range) (1–6) 6 points

Satisfactory (C range) (7) 7 points

Proficient (B range) (8) 8 points

Exemplary (A range) (9–10) 10 points

Criterion Score

Wrote in a clear,

concise, and

organized manner;

demonstrated

ethical scholarship

in accurate

representation

and attribution of

sources (i.e., APA);

and displayed

accurate spelling,

grammar, and

punctuation.

Submission contains

no discernible overall

intent in author’s

selection of ideas.

Errors in basic writing

conventions are

sufficiently numerous

to prevent reader

comprehension.

No attempt at

Academic/APA

formatting in

presentation.

Submission contains

random presentation

of ideas, which

prevents

understanding the

majority of author’s

overall intent.

Errors in basic writing

conventions are

sufficiently numerous

to prevent reader

comprehension of

majority of the work.

Academic/APA

format is attempted,

but errors are

significant.

Ideas are presented in

a way that forces the

reader to make

repeated inferences in

order to identify and

follow the author’s

overall intent.

Errors in basic writing

conventions interfere

with, but do not

prevent, reader

comprehension.

Academic/APA

format is attempted

but errors are

distracting.

The writer’s overall

argument and

language are clear and

tightly focused,

leaving the reader

with no room for

confusion about

author’s intent.

Text is basically error

free, so that a reader

would have to

purposely search to

find any errors that

may be present.

Using Academic/APA

format proficiently.

Text is basically error

free.

No Submission Emerging (F through D range) Satisfactory (C range) Proficient (B range) Exemplary (A range)

The reader can follow

the author’s overall

intent as stated.

The reader noticed a

few errors in basic

writing conventions

but these few errors

do not interfere with

reader

comprehension.

Using Academic/APA

format accurately.

Errors are noticeable

but minor.