Review

Evaluation Summary for Language & Communication: LAT Task 5
Final Score: Does not Meet
Overall comments: The paper has an unusual and intriguing topic and the submission is a good start on this rather demanding assessment; however, lack of required content (as delineated in the comments below) necessitates a revision. Please review the comments, revise accordingly, and resubmit when ready.Detailed Results (Rubric used: LAT Task 5)
Articulation of Response (clarity, organization, mechanics, relevant use of content terminology)
(0) Unsatisfactory (1) Does Not Meet Standard (2) Minimally Competent (3) Competent (4) Highly Competent
The candidate provides no evidence of response to the prompts. The candidate provides weak articulation of response. The candidate provides limitedarticulation of response. The candidate provides adequate articulation of response. The candidate provides substantial articulation of response.
Criterion Score: 3.00
Comments on this criterion: [This aspect is evaluated in terms of the following four components: organization, word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions.]

Organization: This component is evaluated as limited (2.00). [Someorganization is evident, but it is not clear and consistent throughout. Evidence of response to the assessment prompt is nonetheless detectable.]

Word Choice: This component is evaluated as adequate (3.00). [The vocabulary is accurately employed to adequately support the communication.]

Sentence Fluency: This component is evaluated as adequate (3.00). [The sentence construction enables thereader to move easily through the piece.]

Conventions: This component is evaluated as adequate (3.00). [The one or two errors which are noted do not impede the communication.]

Considering that the revisions required below should improve the organizational component, the overall evaluation of this aspect is resolved to the 3.00 level.
A1. Introduction
(0) Unsatisfactory (1) Does Not MeetStandard (2) Minimally Competent (3) Competent (4) Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a complete introduction. The candidate provides a complete introduction that includes a thesis statement but no preview of the main points that will be covered. The candidate provides a complete introduction that includes a thesis statement and a limited preview of the main points that will becovered. The candidate provides a complete introduction that includes a thesis statement and an adequate preview of the main points that will be covered. The candidate provides a complete introduction that includes a thesis statement and a substantial preview of the main points that will be covered.
Criterion Score: 0.00
Comments on this criterion: A clear thesis statement and preview of themain points is not readily detectable in the paper.

In the revision, please include a complete introduction consisting of a definite thesis statement and a preview of the main points.
A2a. Points of Research Topic
(0) Unsatisfactory (1) Does Not Meet Standard (2) Minimally Competent (3) Competent (4) Highly Competent
The candidate does not develop each of the main points in effectiveparagraphs. The candidate develops each of the main points in effective paragraphs with no support. The candidate develops each of the main points in effective paragraphs with limited support. The candidate develops each of the main points in effective paragraphs with adequate support. The candidate develops each of the main points in effective paragraphs with substantial support.
Criterion Score:0.00
Comments on this criterion: The main points are not effectively developed (the paper as a whole appears to be underdeveloped), and the research support is limited. Several points are introduced with no citations.

In the revision, please add sufficient in-text documentation to support all main points and develop the main points further.
A2b. Credible Sources
(0) Unsatisfactory (1) Does...