INSR-6007 Discussion #3
Read the article “Damages on Tap” and answer the following questions;
Draft an argument, using at least five (5) valid positions as noted in this article, for reform of joint and several liability involving municipalities. Draft one (1) argument in favour of remaining as it is.
How to Submit your Assignment
Post your answers to Online Discussion #3 by 11.59 pm on Sunday
Access the Rubric for Online Discussions.docx
Assignment Resources and Links
Direct link to article mentioned above
Documents/Rubric for Online Discussions.docx
Rubric for Online Discussions / Assignments # ___ Name ___________________________________________ Score: _____________
Thinking / Reflection
Arguments are pertinent to the topic. Arguments are logical and supported with evidence. Highly informative and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Arguments are pertinent to the topic. Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported. Arguments are informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical or supported. Somewhat informative and understandable.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at all, logical and supported. Not very informative and understandable.
There is a logical flow to the topics / arguments. Conclusion flows clearly from the arguments presented.
Discussion is fairly well organized. Conclusion flows from the rest of the discussion.
Discussion weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Discussion is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t flow from the rest of the discussion.
Language and style are appropriate for intended audience. Main points are memorable. Reader is very engaged. Discussion presents well developed analysis and synthesis. Clearly demonstrates critical thinking.
Language and style of discussion appropriate. Reader is engaged. Discussion presents reasonable analysis and synthesis. Demonstrates critical thinking.
Language and style only fair. Reader is only somewhat engaged. Less-developed analysis and synthesis. Critical thinking is abstract and hard to follow.
Language and style are poor. Reader finds it hard to follow. Analysis and synthesis lacking. There is little evidence of critical thinking.
The conclusion is engaging and reflects personal learning.
The conclusion restates the learning.
The conclusion does not adequately restate the learning.
Incomplete and/or unfocused.
No errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. No errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Almost no errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Almost no errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Many errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Many errors in sentence structure and word usage.
Numerous and distracting errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Numerous and distracting errors in sentence structure and word usage.