| CRITERIA |
|
|
|
|
|
| Ranked evidence
in appropriate order |
Weaker
evidence ranked higher than stronger evidence (0-2) |
|
Most
evidence ranked appropriately (4) |
|
Stronger
evidence ranked higher than weaker evidence (6) |
| Sufficient/appropriate
rationale for ranking |
Provided
no appropriate rationale for rankings (0-1) |
Provided
appropriate rationale for a few rankings (2-5) |
Provided
appropriate rationale for some rankings (6-8) |
Provided
appropriate rationale for most rankings (9-11) |
Provided
appropriate rationale for all rankings (12) |
| Sufficient/appropriate
rationale for identifying conclusive evidence |
Weak
or inaccurate justification (0-2) |
|
Justification
was on target but not completely accurate (4) |
|
Provided
appropriate justification for conclusive claims (6) |
Well written
- clarity
- organization
- mechanics
|
|
Confusing
presentation with quite a few mechanical errors (0-2) |
Some
awkward/confusing passages OR quite a few mechanical errors (3-4) |
Fairly
well written (5) |
Clearly
presented and mostly free of errors (6) |