Comparative Evaluation Papers

February 16, 2023

Comparative Evaluation Papers

Order Number	7653896754363277
Type of Project	ESSAY/DISERTATION
Writer Level	PHD/MASTERS CERTIFIED
Format	APA/MLA/HARVARD/OXFORD
Academic Sources	10 -20
Page Count	4-8 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Comparative Evaluation Papers

These essays should include a critical evaluation of the two assigned readings for the week, which are specified on your syllabus. CEPs should include an identification of each of the authors’ major theses (claims) as well as a comparison of the texts such as the author’s credibility and/or bias (ethos); argumentative logic, use of evidence, or logical fallacies (logos); and/or the authors’ tone and/or language (pathos). You must provide cited examples from the texts to support your evaluation, but remember that the majority of the paper should be your words and ideas. CEPs are not summaries or personal reflections of the readings. Do not tell me what each of the authors said about a particular topic or issue; instead, explain any similarities and/or differences in the ways in which each author developed his or her claim(s). CEPs will be graded based on their successful achievement of the criteria outlined above. CEPs that do not critically evaluate the reading based on the principles of evaluation and provide only a summary or superficial analysis of the reading will not receive high marks. CEPs should contain a minimum of 300 words, however, you may need to go beyond that minimum to develop a thorough comparative evaluation.

[Order Now]

Comparative Evaluation Papers

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.