Assignment 2 Science week 9

Criteria	Unacceptable Below 60% F	Meets MinimumExpectations 60-69% D	Fair 70-79% C	Proficient 80-89% B	Exemplary 90-100% A
1. Compare and contrast natural versus anthropogenic climate changes. Include at least two (2) specific examples of each. Weight: 20%	Did not submit or incompletely compared and contrasted natural versus anthropogenic climate changes. Did not submit or incompletely included at least two (2) specific examples of each.	Insufficiently compared and contrasted natural versus anthropogenic climate changes. Insufficiently included at least two (2) specific examples of each.	Partially compared and contrasted natural versus anthropogenic climate changes. Partially included at least two (2) specific examples of each.	Satisfactorily compared and contrasted natural versus anthropogenic climate changes. Satisfactorily included at least two (2) specific examples of each.	Thoroughly compared and contrasted natural versus anthropogenic climate changes. Thoroughly included at least two (2) specific examples of each.
2. Take a position as to whether or not global warming is taking place. Provide three (3) lines of evidence to support your position. Weight: 20%	Did not submit or incompletely took a position as to whether or not global warming is taking place. Did not submit or incompletely provided three (3) lines of evidence to support your position.	Insufficiently took a position as to whether or not global warming is taking place. Insufficiently provided three (3) lines of evidence to support your position.	Partially took a position as to whether or not global warming is taking place. Partially provided three (3) lines of evidence to support your position.	Satisfactorily took a position as to whether or not global warming is taking place. Satisfactorily provided three (3) lines of evidence to support your position.	Thoroughly took a position as to whether or not global warming is taking place. Thoroughly provided three (3) lines of evidence to support your position.
3. Assess two (2) current mitigation strategies for global warming, such as carbon sequestration, carbon taxing, clean coal technology, higher fuel efficiency standards, and so on. Analyze the effectiveness of this mitigation strategy, as well as its potential costs and policy implications. Weight: 20%	Did not submit or incompletely assessed two (2) current mitigation strategies for global warming, such as carbon sequestration, carbon taxing, clean coal technology, higher fuel efficiency standards, and so on. Did not submit or incompletely analyzed the effectiveness of this mitigation strategy, as well as its potential costs and policy implications.	Insufficiently assessed two (2) current mitigation strategies for global warming, such as carbon sequestration, carbon taxing, clean coal technology, higher fuel efficiency standards, and so on. Insufficiently analyzed the effectiveness of this mitigation strategy, as well as its potential costs and policy implications.	Partially assessed two (2) current mitigation strategies for global warming, such as carbon sequestration, carbon taxing, clean coal technology, higher fuel efficiency standards, and so on. Partially analyzed the effectiveness of this mitigation strategy, as well as its potential costs and policy implications.	Satisfactorily assessed two (2) current mitigation strategies for global warming, such as carbon sequestration, carbon taxing, clean coal technology, higher fuel efficiency standards, and so on. Satisfactorily analyzed the effectiveness of this mitigation strategy, as well as its potential costs and policy implications.	Thoroughly assessed two (2) current mitigation strategies for global warming, such as carbon sequestration, carbon taxing, clean coal technology, higher fuel efficiency standards, and so on. Thoroughly analyzed the effectiveness of this mitigation strategy, as well as its potential costs and policy implications.
4. Speculate on the policy changes that you would propose to help stabilize global climate and determine the business sectors or nations that would be held to more strict standards if you were to implement your proposed policies. Weight: 15%	Did not submit or incompletely speculated on the policy changes that you would propose to help stabilize global climate; did not submit or incompletely determined the business sectors or nations that would be held to more strict standards if you were to implement your proposed policies.	Insufficiently speculated on the policy changes that you would propose to help stabilize global climate; insufficiently determined the business sectors or nations that would be held to more strict standards if you were to implement your proposed policies.	Partially speculated on the policy changes that you would propose to help stabilize global climate; partially determined the business sectors or nations that would be held to more strict standards if you were to implement your proposed policies.	Satisfactorily speculated on the policy changes that you would propose to help stabilize global climate; satisfactorily determined the business sectors or nations that would be held to more strict standards if you were to implement your proposed policies.	Thoroughly speculated on the policy changes that you would propose to help stabilize global climate; thoroughly determined the business sectors or nations that would be held to more strict standards if you were to implement your proposed policies.
5. Writing / Support for ideas Weight: 5%	Never uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas	Rarely uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas	Partially uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas	Mostly uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas	Consistently uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.
6. Writing / Grammar and mechanics Weight: 5%	Serious and persistent errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.	Numerous errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.	Partially free of errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.	Mostly free of errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.	Free of errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
7. Writing and Information Literacy / Integration of Sources Weight: 5%	Serious errors in the integration of sources, such as intentional or accidental plagiarism or failure to use in-text citations.	Sources are rarely integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, using in-text citations.	Sources are partially integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, using in-text citations.	Sources are mostly integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, using in-text citations.	Sources are consistently integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, using in-text citations.
8. Information Literacy / Crediting Sources in APA Weight: 5%	Lack of citations and / or lack of reference section and / or citations don’t correspond to listed references. Major other APA formatting issues.	In-text citations and references are given, but not in APA format. Several other APA formatting issues.	Partially shows correct (or approximately correct) use of in-text citations, with matching references using APA format. Some other APA formatting issues.	Mostly shows correct use of in-text citations with matching references using APA format. Mostly no other APA formatting issues.	Consistently shows correct use of In-text citations with matching references using APA format. No major other APA formatting issues.
9. Information Literacy / Research Weight: 5%	Quantity and / or quality of sources are unacceptable.	Too few references and / or references are of poor quality.	Number of sources is less than expected (< 4) and / or the quality of sources is questionable.	Number of sources is sufficient (at least 4) and the quality of sources is mostly good.	Number of sources is sufficient (at least 4) and the quality of sources is good.