“ actionable intelligence ,” specifying H u m a n i t i e s

4.0 ptsExceeds Expectations. The author’s recommendation is “actionable intelligence,” specifying who should do what (or who should rethink what). There is no conflict between the proposed solution and real-world difficulties. The recommendation is practical and sensible. The author may offer nuanced thinking about difficulties or alternatives.

3.0 ptsMeets Expectations. The author’s recommendation is “actionable intelligence,” specifying who should do what (or who should rethink what). There is no conflict between the proposed solution and real-world difficulties. The recommendation is practical. The author may capably consider some difficulties or alternatives.

2.0 ptsBelow Expectations. Author specifies what should be done but states it in an impractical or simplistic way. Lacks clarity about how this solution will be implemented. May have missing characters – “something should be done” (failing to say who should do it). May briefly but inadequately consider difficulties or alternatives. Solution may face potential or minor obstacles that the writer has dismissed or ignored.

0.0 ptsUnacceptable. No clear recommendation.

4.0 ptsExceeds Expectations: Evidence and reasoning are in keeping with the level of argumentation in a document from the field. May, for instance, reconcile seemingly contradictory data.

3.0 ptsMeets Expectations: Author incorporates and analyzes pieces of evidence that are significant, sufficient, and appropriate for an audience of professionals.

2.0 ptsApproaches Expectations: Author incorporates evidence, but evidence is limited (insignificant, insufficient, or inappropriate) for an audience of professionals. Evidence may lack analysis.

0.0 ptsUnacceptable

4.0 ptsExceeds Expectations. Language consistently adheres to standards of plain English: sentences begin with appropriate characters and verbs while avoiding nominalizations and filler. No empty modifiers.

3.0 ptsMeets Expectations. Language minimally adheres to standards of plain English, using appropriate characters in the subject position, along with clear verbs, while avoiding nominalizations and filler. Few or no empty modifiers.

2.0 ptsBelow expectations. Writing exhibits minor problems in sentences. For example: Language does not adhere to standards of plain English: writer fails to start sentences with the appropriate characters, has few active verbs, uses nominalizations, or includes filler and/or empty modifiers.

0.0 ptsUnacceptable. Writing exhibits at least one major problem in concision. For example, oral rather than written language patterns predominate.

4.0 ptsExceeds Expectations. Technical terms are used judiciously and clearly. Writer avoids jargon. Plain language for employees/colleagues. Diction is precise and appropriate to the rhetorical situation.

3.0 ptsMeets Expectations. Sentences are clear and show some variety & complexity. Diction is appropriate to the rhetorical situation. Avoids jargon.

2.0 ptsBelow expectations. Writing exhibits minor problems in sentences. For example: Sentences may lack variety and/or be simplistic. Diction may be immature or rely on clichés. Writer may rely on jargon.

0.0 ptsUnacceptable: Unacceptable. Writing exhibits at least one major problem in diction. For example, the writer uses superficial and stereotypical language.

4.0 ptsExceeds Expectations: Zero mechanical errors and a masterful use of punctuation and syntax to manage evidence and drive home the reasoning.

3.0 ptsMeets Expectations: Zero mechanical errors, or one, per page.

2.0 ptsBelow Expectations: Two mechanical errors per page.

0.0 ptsUnacceptable: More than two mechanical errors per page.