I have gone through the work and I am more than satisfied. Thanks for the timely intervention. I appreciate your help. it was a great job. thank you so much for everything thanks.

please write about how tattoos, and plasmid collection substitutes can affect the donors 24714165_1Screen Shot at 90547 PM.png 24714115_2Screen Shot at 90551 PM.png okay, I'll submit it late but it would be good if I can get it as soon as possible. thanks man within 6 months of getting a tattoo, the people are not allowed to donate blood. And after 6 months, the people with tattoos that would actually come back to donate blood will drop by 30% (based on some research). This is for the socio cultural factors for PESTEL Plasmid collection substitutes are threats of substitutes for the SWOT analysis. Basically, the essay has to talk about what can affect the number of donors for Australian Red Cross. So tattoos, gays, etc will affect the blood donor business. oh, sorry, i didn't see the question. No you don't have to. It's just an idea for the report Australian Red Cross blood donor business and how present sociocultural factors will reduce or increase the number of donors to the Red Cross in Australia

Improper citation of sources and referencing of work. (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that Students fail to use the following information use strategies (use of citations and references• choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original

Develops a problem statement but lacks academic rigour, with material that is incomplete or irrelevant. Little evidence of knowledge of the relevant body of knowledge to make a persuasive case. Unable to or poorly demonstrates an ability to write a problem statement or identify important contextual factors. Work may have failed for one or more of the following: non- submission, academic misconduct, answering a different question from the one asked, poor or incoherent vocabulary, no evidence of correct scholarly referencing. Report structure and Work is fully referenced according to accepted scholarly standards (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to orioinal context: Work is fully referenced according to accepted scholarly standards (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are

Problem definition (25%) Demonstrates the ability to construct a clear and insightful problem statement with evidence of all relevant contextual factors. Identifies potentially significant yet previously less-explored aspects of the issue(s). Highly original or insightful work. Demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of the subject. Demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors having been considered and analysed. Appropriately addresses most relevant aspects of the issue. Demonstrates the ability Demonstrates an ability to construct a problem in identifying a problem statement with evidence statement or related of most relevant contextual factors. contextual factors. Volume Important aspects of of reading of sufficient problem not addressed. breadth and depth for a Depth of reading competent understanding insufficient to award a of main issues, underlying credit grade. Problem principles and concepts statement may be factual but without the and descriptive rather comprehensiveness of than analytical. higher grades.

The elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are developed but some elements may be missing, incorrectly developed, or unfocused. Coherent arguments supported by evidence and illustration from the work of other authorities or by direct empirical analysis, but without the intellectual independence found in the higher grades. The suggested methodology demonstrates a basic understanding of the methodology or theoretical frameworks. Theories and/or frameworks are applied in an unsophisticated manner. The suggested methodology demonstrates a poor understanding of the methodology or theoretical frameworks. There may be basic errors in the application of the theories and/or frameworks. Fails to demonstrate any coherent methodology or application of theoretical frameworks.

Fail 30%-49% Little evidence of knowledge of the relevant body of knowledge to make a persuasive case. Failure to review critically, analyse, consolidate and combine knowledge and draw relevant conclusions. Serious Fail <30% Presents information from irrelevant sources or in very insufficient quantity. Use of appropriate theory (25%) All elements of the methodology and/or theoretical frameworks are skilfully developed. Appropriate methodology or theoretical frameworks may be synthesised from across disciplines or from relevant sub-disciplines. Identifies flaws in published work. Distinction 70%-79% Demonstrated ability to critically review, analyse, synthesise, and apply theoretical and technical body of knowledge in a broad range of areas and diverse contexts perhaps with some synthesis. Shows reasoning and creative skills to use knowledge and awareness to exercise critical thinking and judgement in selecting and applying methods and technologies in identifying and solving problems with intellectual independence.

Writing about Australian Red Cross with any PESTEL factor and SWOT analysis Breadth and depth of organisational and contextual research (30%) High Distinction 80%- 100% Provides an in-depth synthesis of information from relevant sources, representing various points of view / approaches. Distinction 70%-79%Demonstrated ability to critically review, analyse, synthesise, and apply theoretical and technical body of knowledge in a broad range of areas and diverse contexts perhaps with some synthesis. Credit 60%-89% Presents information from relevant sources representing various points of view / approaches. Demonstrates some analysis of those views/approaches. Pass 50%-59%Presents factual information from some relevant sources representing limited points of view/approaches. Lack of analysis or critical appreciation of knowledge sources.