I have a 1 and a half-page outline. I need this outline that I uploaded to be extended to a 3-page paper minimum. You can use additional sources if needed but make sure there scholarly and from the United States. Also, use the rubric I provided to ensure I get an A.
Describes an Example of a Contract
Total: _/15
Distinguished – Thoroughly describes an example of a contract and provides specific contractual details, including parties and subject matter involved.
Proficient – Describes an example of a contract and provides contractual details, including parties and subject matter involved. Minor details are missing or inaccurate.
Basic – Somewhat describes an example of a contract and provides vague contractual details, including parties and subject matter involved. Relevant details are missing or inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Attempts to describe an example of a contract, but does not provide contractual details, including parties and subject matter involved and significant details are missing or inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The description of an example of a contract is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.
Defines the Five Essential Elements of an Enforceable Contract and Demonstrates How Each Element Relates to the Example
Total: _/30
Distinguished – Comprehensively defines the five essential elements of an enforceable contract and accurately demonstrates how each element relates to the example.
Proficient – Defines the five essential elements of an enforceable contract and demonstrates how each element relates to the example. The definitions are slightly underdeveloped or the demonstration is slightly inaccurate.
Basic – Defines the five essential elements of an enforceable contract and demonstrates how each element relates to the example. The definitions are underdeveloped and/or the demonstration is inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Attempts to define the five essential elements of an enforceable contract and demonstrate how each element relates to the example; however, the definitions are significantly underdeveloped and/or the demonstration is inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The definition of the five essential elements of an enforceable contract and the demonstration of how each element relates to the example are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.
Explains the Circumstances of a Breach of Contract in the Example and Discusses Possible Remedies
Total: _25
Distinguished – Comprehensively explains the circumstance of a breach of contract in the example and thoroughly discusses the possible remedies.
Proficient – Explains the circumstance of a breach of contract in the example and discusses the possible remedies. The explanation or discussion is slightly underdeveloped.
Basic – Explains the circumstance of a breach of contract in the example and discusses the possible remedies. The explanation and/or discussion are underdeveloped.
Below Expectations – Attempts to explain the circumstance of a breach of contract in the example and discuss the possible remedies; however, the explanation and/or discussion are significantly underdeveloped.
Non-Performance – The explanation of the circumstance of a breach of contract in the example and discussion of the possible remedies are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.
Critical Thinking: Explanation of Issues
Total: _/7.5
Distinguished – Clearly and comprehensively explains the issue to be considered, delivering all relevant information necessary for a full understanding.
Proficient – Clearly explains the issue to be considered, delivering enough relevant information for an adequate understanding.
Basic – Briefly explains the issue to be considered, delivering minimal information for a basic understanding.
Below Expectations – Briefly explains the issue to be considered, but may not deliver additional information necessary for a basic understanding.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Critical Thinking: Evidence
Total: _/7.5
Distinguished – Employs persuasive and applicable information from credible sources to develop an ample analysis or synthesis of the topic. Viewpoints of experts are scrutinized thoroughly.
Proficient – Employs applicable information from credible sources to develop an analysis of the topic.
Basic – Identifies applicable information from credible sources, but may neglect the application of such information toward the analysis of the topic.
Below Expectations – Presents information from external sources, but such information may lack credibility and/or relevance. Neglects to apply such information toward the analysis of the topic.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Reading: Relationship to Text
Total: _ /5
Distinguished – Analyzes texts for scholarly significance and pertinence within and across various disciplines, assessing them according to their contributions and consequences.
Proficient – Utilizes texts in the context of scholarship to expand a foundation of disciplinary knowledge and to raise and discover significant inquiries.
Basic – Employs texts with the intent and expectation of increasing knowledge. Below Expectations – Approaches texts only within the context of assignment.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Total: _/2.5
Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.
Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.
Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader.
Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors which distract the reader.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: APA Formatting
Total: _/2.5
Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.
Basic – Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.
Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Page Requirement
Total: _/2.5
Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Proficient – The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Basic – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Below Expectations – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Resource Requirement
Total: _/2.5
Distinguished – Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Proficient – Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Basic – Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment.
Citations may not be formatted correctly.
Below Expectations – Uses inadequate number of sources. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Research Question
Within its own separate section, you should clearly state your RQ. Ideally this should be a single statement or question. [Whether this is stated as a question or a statement is up to your individual project and preference].
You can make this clear by changing the formatting of your RQ [bold or italicized] or can have a subheading of “Research Question” with your RQ stated below. Regardless of how, it must be clearly in its own section.
Possible Solution
Your proposed solution should be clear and well-supported. Ideally, have several scholarly sources, but logic may be appropriate for your support in this section [use judgement and get input if you are uncertain].
In general, your proposed solution should address:
- what [if any] previous attempts by organizations or individuals have done and how your solution builds off of those attempts/ideas.
- how this solution addresses your RQ’s need and/or how your solution differs from what has been done previously.
Conclusion
This section is optional and only necessary if your proposed solution does not wrap up your paper in a way that you prefer or you want to provide closing commentary. There are no “points” associated with a conclusion section.
Other considerations
- The paper should have a narrative flow [isn’t choppy or disjointed].
- The paper has been proofread and has few, if any, grammatical or spelling
- Both disciplines [Biology and your other discipline] are fully and clearly What that looks like is different for each and every project. Use your judgement and ask for feedback.
- References and In-text citations are included and formatted
References
Each of your references should be from peer-reviewed sources. If you have any websites or other resources, they must be in addition to a core number of peer-reviewed references [from academic journals]. As you use these references to support your ideas, be sure to appropriately cite each source, both in-text and in a bibliography at the end. Style noted below.
● Best practices in citations mean that nearly every sentence of your background should be cited.
- Only your thoughts and connections would be left uncited.
- Your sources should be as up-to-date as possible. If your sources are all from 2005 and this is a current and ongoing problem, you should search for more recent support. If your sources are mostly from 2005 and represent a slow moving field like paleontology, then you are likely
● Absolutely no quotations.
- Make sure that the material you cite is put into your own words – it is not acceptable to include quoted material [even less acceptable to include sentences/paragraphs lifted verbatim from a source].
- You can upload your work to a plagiarism checker like grammarly [https://www.grammarly.com/plagiarism-checker] or run google’s own originality report where you submit the file [there should be an option to do this up to 3 times, but I’m skeptical this is available at NCSU now, as it was not in the Fall]. Critically evaluate whether a flagged passage can be reworded. It almost always can and always must.
- Students often hesitate to rewrite things because of worry of misrepresenting their source, but this is what makes your work your own. Proper citations ensure you are not plagiarizing.
Reference and Citation Formats
If you use Zotero, use CSE [8th, Name-Year Sequence] or “Cell”. You can use Zotero to generate your citations and your references cited list [Author, date].
See also: https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/documentation/doccse/nameyear/
I will not nitpick over your references, but the authors, year published, article title, journal title, and article location [volume and pages] should all be included. I do not need [or want] the URL and date accessed. A URL is only necessary if you are citing a webpage.
Basic format is [author, date] for in-text citations.
If there are two authors, the citation should be: [Little and Kridel, 2008]. If there are more than two authors, the citation should look like: [Little et al., 2014].
If you’re referencing a database/online site and there is no author, then your in-text citation should be: [Organization, date written]
Basic format is for the reference list:
- Author[s]. [Date] Title of Journal Title Vol: Pages.
or
- Author[s]. [Date] Title of Chapter in Book Title [Editors of book] Publisher. Vol: Pages.
or
- Author[s]. [Date] Title of page/section/article in Database title. URL.
Examples:
3 or more authors
In text:
[Little et al., 2014] In reference list:
Little JL, Izumchenko EI, Egelston BL, Parise E, Klein-Szanto A, Loudon G, Seo S, Kurokawa M, Ochs MF, Golemis, EA. [2014] “Nedd9 Supports Mammary Tumorigenesis and Luminal Progenitor Cell Populations in MMTV-HER2/ErbB2 mice.” Oncogene. 33[4]:411-420.
1 or 2 authors
In text:
[Little and Kridel, 2008]
In reference list:
Little JL, Kridel SJ. [2008] “Fatty Acid Synthase Activity in Tumor Cells.” In Subcellular Biochemistry: Lipids in Health and Disease, [PJ Quinn, X Wang, eds.], Springer, 49: 169-194.
Database with no author or date of last update
In text:
[SGD Project, 2020]
In reference list:
SGD Project https://www.yeastgenome.org/locus/S000004103 [4 April 2020]
For info on how to reference databases or websites, use https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/documentation/doccse/nameyear/ to guide you.
Also note that many journals are owned by big publishers like Elsevior or Springer. Therefore, when you find an article, it may initially appear as though it is published in “Springer”. That is not the journal.
