Discussion of Innate Good

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

16.0 % Support or Debate of Innate Good through the Lens of Trait Theories

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of trait theories is either missing or is not evident to the reader.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of trait theories is present, but is incomplete or inaccurate.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of trait theories is present, but the statement is cursory and lacking in depth.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of trait theories is present, thoroughly described, and includes a discussion of all necessary elements.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of trait theories is present, thoroughly described with rich detail, and includes a discussion of all necessary elements.

16.0 % Support or Debate of Innate Good through the Lens of Biological Theories

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of biological theories is either missing or is not evident to the reader.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of biological theories is present, but is incomplete or inaccurate.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of biological theories is present, but the statement is cursory and lacking in depth.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of biological theories is present, thoroughly described, and includes a discussion of all necessary elements.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of biological theories is present, thoroughly described with rich detail, and includes a discussion of all necessary elements.

16.0 % Support or Debate of Innate Good through the Lens of Humanistic Theories

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of humanistic theories is either missing or is not evident to the reader.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of humanistic theories is present, but is incomplete or inaccurate.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of humanistic theories is present, but the statement is cursory and lacking in depth.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of humanistic theories is present, thoroughly described, and includes a discussion of all necessary elements.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of humanistic theories is present, thoroughly described with rich detail, and includes a discussion of all necessary elements.

16.0 % Support or Debate of Innate Good through the Lens of Behavioral Theories

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of behavioral theories is either missing or is not evident to the reader.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of behavioral theories is present, but is incomplete or inaccurate.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of behavioral theories is present, but the statement is cursory and lacking in depth.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of behavioral theories is present, thoroughly described, and includes a discussion of all necessary elements.

A statement of support or debate of innate good through the lens of behavioral theories is present, thoroughly described with rich detail, and includes a discussion of all necessary elements.

6.0 % Two Additional Scholarly Research Sources With In-Text Citations.

None of the required elements (two topic-related scholarly research sources and two in-text citations) are present.

Not all required elements are present. One or more element is missing and/or an included source(s) is not scholarly research or topic-related.

All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic-related, but the source and quality of one reference is questionable.

All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic-related, and obtained from reputable professional sources.

All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic-related, and obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness

7.0 % Thesis 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.

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 progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

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