Very nice and efficient team, I contacted with. The chat support is very steady and consistent. Wonderful write up. Definitely a life saver for the persons like me who are busy with their work. Good and supportive. Again thank you guys keep it up.

Research Weighting 20% No authoritative sources, no evidence of research or not relevant for the task. Very limited understanding. The research has not been linked to the main text. Less than 2 authoritative sources or sources are not relevant for the task. Limited understanding. Little evidence of meaningful integration of the research with the main text. 2-3 scholarly sources. Some sources lack relevance or authority but are still appropriate for the task. Adequate understanding. The research could be incorporated with the main text more consistently. 3-4 scholarly sources. Sources are mostly well-chosen, authoritative and appropriate for the task. Good understanding. The research is integrated with the main text. 4-5 scholarly sources. Sources are well- chosen, authoritative and are appropriate for the task. Excellent understanding. The research is very well integrated with the main text.

Writing Weighting 5% No consideration for presentation. Muddled writing that is very difficult to follow. Numerous grammatical errors. Multiple spelling errors. Acceptable presentation. Long winded and some clear writing presentation. Some grammatical errors. Multiple spelling errors. Tidy presentation. Mostly clear writing but at times long winded. Writing style lacks consideration. Few issues around grammar. Less than 5 spelling errors. Professional presentation. Clear writing mainly to the point. Considered writing style. Excellent grammar with only minor oversights. Less than 3 spelling errors. Polished presentation. Clear and concise writing. Mature and appropriate writing style. Excellent grammar, correct in all aspects. No spelling errors.

Organisation/ logic Weighting 5% No flow. No argument. Poorly organised and difficult to read. Does not flow logically from one part to another. The argument is not clear. Generally well organised although the flow of the argument is not always logical. Argument is clear and mostly sound. Coherently organised and logical formation of sound argument. Exceptionally well structured. Logic is easy to follow. Arguments are sound and convincing.

Discussion of impact on viability Weighting 35% Insufficient understanding of impact on viability. Discussion is unclear or flawed. Superficial or limited understanding of the impact on viability. The discussion is superficially and lacking of clarity in parts. Understanding of impact on viability is evident. The discussion might be unclear in parts or missing depth. Good understanding of impact on viability. There is insightful and clear discussion of impact on viability. Excellent understanding of impact on viability. There is in-depth discussion of impact on viability.

Criteria E (0-39) D (40-49) C (50-64) B (65-79) A (80-100) Factors identified Weighting 30 % Insufficient understanding of relevant factors that impact on the viability of international markets. Factors are unclear or flawed. Examples are not present. Understanding of some factors that impact on the viability of international markets. More than one significant factor might have been overlooked or inadequately covered. Examples are not clear or flawed. Basic understanding of factors that impact on the viability of international markets. One significant factor might have been overlooked or the overall presentation is lacking depth. Examples are weak or not relevant. Good understanding of all relevant factors that impact on the viability of international markets. Relevant examples strengthen the presentation. Excellent understanding of all relevant factors that impact on the viability of international markets. Highly relevant examples underpin and strengthen the presentation.