Future Societies on Universal Basic Income Research Paper

Author directly addresses reearch topic of questions, adding insights drawing on lectures, readings, or class discussions; synthesizes knowledge from the course in new ways while engaging topic in ways that go beyond the material covered in the course.

Author competently addresses the research topic or questions while drawing to some extent on the material covered in the course; provides an interesting interpretation or analysis of the issues raised in the course from the perspective of the chosen industry.

Author addresses the research topic or questions, but makes only tangential connections to the material covered in the course; while it is clear the author has learned much from the course, the paper does not add much in the way of new insight into the subject.

Author attempts to address the research topic or questions, but fails. The author has retained some information from the course, but does not fully understand its meaning or context and cannot adequately apply it in considering the future of the chosen industry.

Essay does not address the research topic or questions, and it is obvious that author has not retained any information from the course.

Paper contains a clear argument; the author communicates clearly and ideas and evidence for the future directions of the industry are presented in a coherent and logical fashion.

Paper provides a reasonably clear argument, with ideas about the future directions of the industry supported by evidence and presented in a logical order or sequence.

An argument about the future directions of the industry is presented, but the author relies substantially on the reader to reconstruct the argument from the text.

Author attempts, but largely fails, to make a clear argument about the future directions of the industry; claims are asserted without the support of evidence or without being put into context.

No attempt is made to articulate an argument.

Provides compelling and accurate evidence that convinces reader to accept main argument. The importance/relevance of all pieces of evidence is clearly stated. The author considers and thoughtfully responds to evidence, or alternate interpretations of evidence, that could be used to refute or weaken his/her argument.

Provides evidence to convince reader of most if not all aspects of the main argument. Not all evidence presented appears relevant or important. Author acknowledges that counter-evidence or alternate interpretations exist, but does not directly or clearly address these counter-arguments.

Inconsistent use of evidence to support author’s argument; presentation is evidence is unclear or somewhat oversimplified. Minimal use of information from discussions and readings to support the argument. Obvious counter-arguments or alternate interpretations are acknowledged but not clearly addressed.

Not enough evidence is provided to support author’s argument; evidence is incomplete, incorrect, or oversimplified. Vague or inaccurate use of information from lectures and readings. No attempt made to acknowledge or address obvious counter-arguments or alternate interpretations.

Either no evidence is provided, or there are numerous factual mistakes, omissions or oversimplifications. There is little or no mention of information from lectures and readings. No acknowledgement of counter-evidence or alternative interpretations.

Paper includes an introduction, main body, and conclusion laying out the issues to be addressed in the paper, presenting the argument in detail with supporting evidence, and summarizing the main ideas or conclusions from the research. The main body has a clear structure, with an appropriate use of subheadings. Paragraphs are clear and include smooth transitions. All sentences are grammatically correct and clearly written. Minimal spelling or other errors.

Paper includes an introduction, main body, and conclusion, but the introduction does not provide an overview of the paper, the main body is loosely organized, and the conclusion summarizes the main ideas of the paper without drawing larger conclusions for further consideration or research. Paragraphs are reasonaly clear and build the argument. Sentences are mostly grammatically correct but grammar, spelling or other errors impede easy reading and comprehension.

Paper includes an introduction, main body, and conclusion, but the material is not always clearly delineated; there is some redundancy in presentation of the material. Paragraphs often present more than one idea, with somewhat weak transitions. Writing is at times awkward or unclear, with a number of poorly structure or ungrammatical sentences. Though paper is generally comprehensible, the exact meaning is at times uncertain or unclear.

Paper appears to include an introduction, main body, and conclusion, but these are not clearly delineated with headers or other markers. Parts of the paper repeat material presented earlier. Paragraphs may cover several topics, and transitions between paragraphs are proforma. Most sentences are grammatically incorrect, awkwardly written, or unclear. The reader’s ability to understand the paper is severely compromised by persistent grammatical and other errors.

Paper has no clear organizational pattern. Ideas and evidence are presented in a jumble, with sections and paragraphs containing a wide range of ideas, and numerous redundancies in the presentation of the material. The paper is repleat with grammatical errors and poor writing to such an extent that the author’s intent and meaning is mostly lost, and the argument presented in the paper is almost impossible to follow.

Evidence and ideas about the future of the industry are drawn from a range of sources, in addition to assigned readings and in-class discussions, including scholarly books, journal articles, research institutions, government publications, and industry associations. All evidence is property cited with in-text citations and a reference list in APA style.

Evidence and ideas are taken from many sources, but author relies heavily on a limited set of sources for his/her argument. Author goes beyond material presented in class, but most outside sources are intended for a general audience and/or web-based (i.e. not scholarly). Evidence is appropriately if inconsistently cited in the text; reference list is appropriately formated.

Author relies on a limited number of sources for evidence and ideas about the future of the industry, or for understanding the future context, beyond the assigned readings for the course. Outside sources are almost exclusively web-based. The text has few in-text citations to identify the source of evidence or ideas; reference list is not formated in a consistent style.

Makes only minimally use of sources provided by instructor and/or relies exclusively on non-scholarly outside sources. Use of in-text citations to document sources is sporatic and ineffective; the reference list includes only a handful of sources and is haphazardly formatted making sources difficult to identify or locate.

Does not provide sources for evidence or ideas presented in the paper beyond minimal or tangential reference to assigned readings. Statements or evidence are not supported by in-text citations. There is no reference list, or the reference list is not formatted in a way to make it useful for reference purposes.