ENB277 – CASE STUDY SCENARIO PRESENTATION - CRITERION REFERENCE ASSESSMENT SHEET CRITERIA STANDARDS Grade 7 Grade 6 Grade 5 Grade 4 Grade 3-1 Criterion 1 Knowledge and understanding Demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the relevant area of the law /25 25 - 21 20.5 - 19 18.5 - 16 15.5 - 12.5 12 - 0 Correctly, comprehensively and clearly identifies and explains the relevant area of law. Correctly and clearly identifies and explains most aspects of the relevant area of law. Identifies and describes (with few and minor omissions) the relevant area of law. Identifies and lists only basic or obvious aspects of the relevant area of law. Demonstrates limited or inaccurate knowledge and understanding of the relevant area of law. Criterion 2 Application of legal principles Demonstrated analysis of the case study scenario and application of the relevant law to the facts /25 25 - 21 20.5 - 19 18.5 - 16 15.5 - 12.5 12 - 0 Correctly, comprehensively and consistently applies the relevant law to the facts in a logical and coherent way. Correctly and consistently applies key points of relevant law to the facts in a logical and coherent way. Correctly applies key points of relevant law (there may be some minor omissions) to the facts in a generally logical and coherent way. Applies key points of relevant law (there may be some significant omissions) to the facts with mostly successful attempts at logic and coherence. Areas of relevant law are not applied to the facts or application is based on areas of law of little or no relevance to the topic. Criterion 3 Oral communication Demonstrated oral communication skills and clarity of information /25 25 - 21 20.5 - 19 18.5 - 16 15.5 - 12.5 12 - 0 Highly relevant content appropriate for audience. Comprehensive range of relevant or important issues fully addressed; awareness of significant and subtle detail demonstrated. Strongly supported conclusions with highly pertinent material. Relevant content appropriate for audience. Identification of almost all important and relevant issues. A very good attempt at supporting conclusions with relevant material. Relevant content appropriate for audience; Identification of most relevant issues; good attempt at supporting conclusions with suitable material. Adequate/satisfactory content appropriate for audience. Identification of most issues of obvious relevance or importance (along with occasional distraction by less significant material); satisfactory attempt supporting conclusions with basic material. Identification of some issues of obvious relevance or importance as well as some that were irrelevant or unimportant; little attempt at drawing or supporting conclusions. Criterion 4 Written communication Demonstrated writing skills with cohesion of argument and control of syntax /25 25 - 21 20.5 - 19 18.5 - 16 15.5 - 12.5 12 - 0 Arguments are logically and cogently developed through a highly compelling line of reasoning; supporting arguments have internal coherence and are logically connected. Thorough proofreading is evident: spelling, grammar and punctuation are error-free throughout. Arguments are developed through valid reasoning; supporting arguments have internal coherence and are logically connected. Adequate proofreading is evident: work is relatively free of errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Arguments are developed and supported, though some reasoning is insufficiently developed or given disproportionate focus. Proofreading is evident: errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation are few and minor. Arguments are laboured, the work is largely descriptive with logical gaps in reasoning. Supporting arguments make some useful points but connections between them are vague, incoherent or poorly sequenced. Inadequate proofreading resulting in numerous errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation with occasional impact on meaning and readability. Points are made without development into an argument adapted to the specifics of the question. Inadequate proofreading: work contains multiple errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation with significant impact on meaning and readability. Result: /100 Weighting for this assessment task: 20% Weighted result: /20