5.0 %APA Format Required format is rarely followed correctly. No reference page is included. No in-text citations are used. Required format elements are missing or incorrect. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Reference page is present. However, in-text citations are inconsistently used. Required format is generally correct. However, errors are present (e.g. font, cover page, margins, and in-text citations). Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented though some errors are present. Required format is used, but minor errors are present (e.g. headings and direct quotes). Reference page is present and includes all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. The document is correctly formatted. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.

5.0 %Mechanics of Writing Mechanical errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

30.0 %Rationale for the Observed Differences No rationale for the observed differences is present. A rationale for the observed differences is present, but it lacks depth of reason. A rationale for the observed differences is present and demonstrates limited depth of reason though it is not thorough. A rationale for the observed differences is present and demonstrates some depth of reason. A rationale for the observed differences is present, thorough, and demonstrates great depth of reason. 10.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis.

Please see intructions on assignment. PLease can you have the person who did the other two assignment do this one. MAKE SURE GRAMMAR IS CORRECT PLEASE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION A clear description of the primary differences between the structures of the literature reviews is present. The description demonstrates that the learner has a moderate understanding of the purpose and structure of a literature review. A clear description of the primary differences between the structures of the literature reviews is present and thorough. The description demonstrates that the learner has a solid understanding of the purpose and structure of a literature review.

3. Please use Rubic Below to answer questions. Thank you Comparing Literature Reviews 1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 2 Less than Satisfactory 74.00% 3 Satisfactory 79.00% 4 Good 87.00% 5 Excellent 100.00% 100.0 %Criteria 50.0 %Clear Description of the Primary Differences Between the Structures of the Literature Reviews A clear description of the primary differences between the structures of the literature reviews is either missing or incomplete. A clear description of the primary differences between the structures of the literature reviews is present, but incomplete or inaccurate The description does not demonstrate that the learner has a solid grasp of the purpose and structure of a literature review. A clear description of the primary differences between the structures of the literature reviews is present, but overly cursory, and demonstrates only a vague understanding of the purpose and structure of a literature review.