HMD 307 UNLV Cybervetting Paper Group reviews should add overall comments, answer review questions, and include basic editing comments. When answering the

HMD 307 UNLV Cybervetting Paper Group reviews should add overall comments, answer review questions, and include basic editing comments.

When answering the PeerMark questions, groups should provide comprehensive feedback, including what the group thinks might be missing. You will not be writing a paper. You will be answering the questions with full responses (300-word max per question). Please do not focus on the word count. Focus on providing an accurate assessment of the paper.

Does this paper use a logic-based structure for each main point? (Max. word count 300)

Insufficiently Developed 60%

Adequately Developed 80%

Substantially Developed 100%

Theory 25%

Identifies and appropriately uses ethical theory to support position on the ethical question.

Does not identify or apply a clear ethical theory.

Does not accurately link the theory to the ethical question.

Identifies an ethical theory and applies it to the basic ethical question.

Identifies only the basics of the theory.

Identifies and correctly applies clear and appropriate theory that addresses subsidiary, embedded, or implicit aspects of the ethical question.

Identifies not only the basics theory, but digs deeper to display in-depth knowledge of theory.

Position 15%

Identifies and argues the GROUP’S position as it relates to the question.

Fails to clarify the established or presented position relative to the group perspective and position.

Identifies and presents a position on the question and uses limited information.

Identifies and argues the group position passionately, drawing support from academic research.

Main Points 15%

Uses logic-based structure for each main point

Less than three ideas/main points are explained and/or they are poorly developed. Logic is incoherent. Examples are inappropriate.

Three or more main points relate to the conclusion. Logic is coherent, yet under-developed. Examples are adequate.

Well-developed main points/topic sentences that relate directly to the conclusion. Supporting examples are concrete and detailed. Main points are developed with clear logic, drawing support from academic research.

Conclusion 20%

Identifies and assesses the key assumptions.

The conclusion merely repeats information provided in the paper. Objections are not appropriate. The rebuttal is missing or poorly developed.

The conclusion is clear and is somewhat supported by main points.

Objections are offered, but not well-reasoned.

The rebuttal adequate, but not strong.

The conclusion is strongly stated and well supported by main points.

Potential objections are well-reasoned and clearly articulated. A strong rebuttal to objections is detailed.

APA Format 10%

Between 6 and 10 instances of style errors

5 or fewer instances of style errors

Model document of APA 6th edition: Correct punctuation, citation, tables, figures, format of each reference, capitalization, use of italics, abbreviations, headings, quotations, numbers/stats, etc.