NB this paper relates to financial history, so make sure to point out hystorical financial events that take place in movie2000 words has to be written.The draft shall outline the plot of the novel or

The assignment should follow the following structure:

Introduction – the outline of the paper
Discussion – the way in which study will be conducted and the body of knowledge
Conclusions – results
Bibliography or list of references

What will be expected in the assignment in ascending order:

Evidence of basic knowledge of the topic
Clarity of expression
Attempt to address the question in the light of the instructions
Use of appropriate theoretical analysis and empirical evidence
Evidence of wide reading
A coherent well developed argument
Some degree of originality of thought

How the assignment should be presented:

Title page (student ID or name, title of paper, course code and title, word count)
Pages should be numbered
Section headings should be used
Font size: 12, double spacing
Harvard Referencing Style

The table outlines the grading for the group project and is to be used in conjunction with the grade descriptors in the course syllabus. Each student receives an individual grade on the basis of the group project grade and the peer assessment.

1. Introduction	Provides a convincing interpretation of the question Provides a clear thesis statement. Provides a succinct summary of the key arguments which the paper will subsequently develop. Explains key concepts that will be used in the paper (this can be done here, or in the beginning of the discussion section).	10%
Excellent: All of the above is present and well-written. Good: One or two of the above are missing Poor: Two or more of the above are missing and/or writing style makes it difficult to understand what is being argued.
2. Discussion/ Body	Demonstrates understanding of the topic. Theoretical analysis is logically consistent. Empirical evidence is provided which is appropriate and clearly explained.	60%
Excellent: Does all of the above. Very good: Does all of the above, possibly with some minor flaws in the provision of evidence. Good: Does most of the above, with some flaws in the analysis or evidence. Poor: Theoretical argument is not logically developed. Empirical evidence provided is misrepresented or of questionable relevance.
3. Conclusion/ Policy Recommendation	Key arguments in support of thesis are reiterated.	10%
Excellent: The above is present and well-written. Good: Key arguments are reiterated and linked to the thesis. Poor: Key arguments are not clearly re-stated or linked to the thesis. Writing style makes it difficult to understand what is being concluded.
4. Overall Structure	Uses appropriate format and presents items in a logical structure. Writing is clear and concise. Ensures correct spelling, grammar and punctuation. Uses the Harvard referencing system correctly.	20%
Excellent: All of the above is present with no or very few small errors. Good: All of the above is present with a few errors in structure or format. Poor: Significant problems in layout and writing style. Usage shows carelessness. Harvard system is poorly implemented or absent.