<p> Grading Rubric—Patrick Ryan Course: ENGL 102 Assignment: Comparison/Contrast Analysis . 49/50 Grade Superior (50–45 = A) Strong (44–40 = B) Competent (39–35 = C) Weak (34–30 = D) Unacceptable Content/Development o analyzes the sources o analyzes the sources o unified idea, but o surface-level analysis of o fails to provide analysis with exceptional depth with depth and maybe obvious sources and thoroughness thoroughness analysis of sources o little/no new rhetorical strategies o unclear in describing o insightful, original o establishes interesting o establishes new new purpose, audience, o lack of details and/or support new purpose(s), purpose and or strategies o complexity of thought in audience(s), and a identifies some o summary developing new range of targeted strategies to achieve o rambling ideas, lacking purpose(s), audience(s), rhetorical strategies it, specifies some support o no apparent organization and well-targeted audience appeals rhetorical strategies o good examples, o overly general, vague o fails to address requirements of specific support o gives some assignment o effective use of specific supporting details o poor organization detail to support analysis o assertive detracts from paper thoughts/thesis o shows clarity of o excellent organization thought, but lacking o lacking requirements o effective organization in complexity o exceeds requirements for the assignment o may exceed some o some lapses in requirements for the organization assignment o meets requirements Expression/Mechanics o sentences are varied and o sentences are correct o sentences are o sentences are immature o sentences are incoherent forceful and varied correct but ordinary or tediously patterned o document design has been neglected o creates a superior o document design o document design is o document design detracts document to provide effectively establishes effective yet from comparison o non-standard word choice comparison pattern for comparison simplistic o word choice is vague or o non-standard style o superior word choice o strong word choice o word choice is not idiomatic correct, but obvious o tone is indiscernible o style is fresh, precise, o style is clear an o style is vague and idiomatic idiomatic o style is generally o incorrect and distracting mechanical correct and idiomatic o tone is inconsistent errors o tone complements the o tone fits the subject, subject, distinguishes the persona, and audience o tone is acceptable for o consistent mechanical writer, and defines the the subject errors audience o may have a few usage, spelling, or punctuation o some mechanical o rare mechanical errors errors errors</p><p>Additional Comments:  probably would be more effective to have a brief intro where you mention the titles and authors of BOTH articles at the outset. It’d help set up the compare/contrast aspect of it.  Brilliant job of finding the ‘topic’ that connects the two—I was worried it was going to be too much of a stretch, but I think it works.  Analyzation => analysis  Don’t forget page numbers on your papers—they’re good enough to be treated seriously. Put “Ryan—2” in the header on the right edge.  In-text cites for your quotes are needed. (Bryan 72). Or something…  is a strange mixture of both formal and frank => is a strange mixture, equal parts formality and frankness. (or something to fix the parallel structure)  interesting that both articles take on Occam’s Razor, and Occam wins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)  LOVE that Wikipedia…LOL  Really very good. The changes you made were wise ones. I think the addition of the brief (and I mean brief—1-2 sentences) before diving in will help the reader know what you’re up to. Your writing is fluid and lucid and always a pleasure to read. Don’t touch this again until portfolio time.</p>