Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
COM 200 Autumn 2024 Course Paper 3 Prompts and Grading Rubrics
This document contains following sections. Please read all sections carefully.
Course Paper Length and Due Date
Course Paper Submission Policies
Writing, Citation, and Referencing Policies
Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policies
Use of Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Model Policy
Grading and Grade Appeal Policy
A Sample Response
Course Paper 3 – Five Prompts and Grading Rubrics
1. Course Paper Length and Due Date
There are three course papers throughout the quarter.
Each paper poses FIVE specific questions/prompts.
From these, you will respond to FOUR prompts.
Each response should be between about 400-500 words.
Each question includes a customized and detailed rubric for scoring. We will use this rubric for grading your paper.
Please read these grading criteria before you start writing so that you know exactly what is being asked of your answer.
Furthermore, read the following policies carefully and make sure to follow them throughout the assignment.
Course Paper due dates:
2. Course Paper Submission Policies
A. Late Penalty and Extension Policies
The late penalty is a 10% deduction per day, up to three days, after which a zero will be applied. Keep in mind that the Canvas system applies the late penalty automatically and considers any submission from 1 minute to 23 hours and 59 minutes late as 1 day late.
All due dates and times are posted in this syllabus—please mark your calendar and prepare ahead. Work, tech failure, family events, vacations, early trips home, multiple deadlines—these are not valid excuses for missing a deadline.
If you need an extension of the deadline due to an unforeseen family emergency or a severe medical reason, you must make a reasonable effort to reach out to your TA with an extension request in writing (e.g., via email), at least 24 hours before the deadline. Clearly explain the reason (no need to send your private medical data or image), severity, and duration of the extension requested. This means Thursday is the cut-off time after which we cannot guarantee that your request will be considered. Giving your TA sufficient time to respond well before the cut-off time will increase the chance of favorable consideration. Upon receiving a written request, your TA will approve or deny any extension request on a case-by-case basis. Out of fairness to those who submit on time, we will not consider a request for extension or late penalty removal after the deadline has passed. Please also note, your TA and the instructor will most likely not be available during the weekend. If you have any questions about the papers, contact us during the workday.
*Note: The entire teaching team is committed to making this course accessible, and as such we care about your physical health and mental health. You do NOT need to disclose personal health details to request an accommodation and/or extensions. But if a health concern is affecting your ability to meet a deadline, please communicate with your TA and we will work with you on a case-by-case basis.
B. Turn-it-in/SimCheck
To detect plagiarism, this course uses the Turn-it-in/SimCheck for all paper submissions. The tool is integrated into the Canvas submission system. You must check the similarity report in the “Submission Details” when you upload your paper. The system flags any similarity with previously submitted work or online content by a percentage score. The only acceptable similarity is the question prompt and/or any references and properly cited direct quotes. Except for statements with direct quotes, in each sentence, if five consecutive words match word for word between a student’s work and another source, that is a sign that the work is plagiarized. To avoid unintentional plagiarism, you can rework and resubmit your paper as needed, but only until the deadline. Avoid sharing your ideas or drafts with others as all parties involved in a plagiarism case will receive no credit. There will not be any redo or re-submit opportunity. Any plagiarized submission will receive 0 marks and the case will be immediately reported to the University’s Committee on Academic ConductLinks to an external site..
C. Reusing course papers
If you have taken this course already you cannot reuse the course papers. Resubmitting the same paper/answer is considered as self-plagiarism. Your writing must be significantly changed. No sentence can match word for word.
D. Incomplete paper, corrupt file, and tech disruption
Please note:
You must address FOUR prompts in each course paper. Each response must be clearly separable. Incomplete submission = 0 marks in the incomplete parts. No redo opportunity.
Double check the file during and after you submit. Corrupt or inaccessible file submissions will receive 0 marks. No redo or resubmission will be allowed after the deadline has passed.
Note that device loss or internet malfunction is not an acceptable excuse for late submission or submission failure. Consider using a cloud-based storage system for writing papers.
3. Writing, Citation, and Referencing Policies
A. APA Policy
First and foremost, if you want to get a good grade in this assignment, you need to learn how to cite lecture materials and format a reference in a bibliography accurately in APA Style. APA (American Psychological Association) Style is widely used in the social sciences, business, and some of the life sciences. APA Style uses brief in-text citations in the text that refer to an alphabetical list of references appearing at the end of the work. Start with this guide from the UW Library: https://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/citations/apa-style.
To write a good course paper, paraphrase academic materials legitimately instead of extensively copying and pasting from the readings and lecture/reading review slides. All paraphrased content must be cited with the relevant page number. See an example of a ‘legitimate paraphrase’ here (https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/using_research/quoting_paraphrasing_and_summarizing/paraphrasing.htmlLinks to an external site.).
You should cite lecture contents using in-text citation (here are several ways to cite a source in-text: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/in_text_citations_the_basics.htmlLinks to an external site.). Keep the use of direct quotes limited to 15%-25% of the essay. Accompany them with a page number from the original source if available.
Do not risk plagiarizing. Everything that is not an original thought from you must be cited, both in text and in the bibliography.
B. Citing Class Lectures
General Format
(Author Surname, Year)
Author Surname, First Initial. Second Initial. (Year). Lecture title. Specific page [if applicable] [Format, e.g., video lecture, PDF, Excel, Word document, or PowerPoint slides provided by your instructor]. Name of the University, Course Title Canvas: URL of website.
In-Text Citation
References:
Sample citation and reference of a hypothetical lecture
In-Text Citation: (Rahman, 2023)
References: Rahman, A. (2023). Week 11: Political communication [in-person lecture]. Slide: Public opinion and polling. University of Washington, Introduction to Communication Course Canvas: https://canvas.uw.edu/
C. Citing Multiple Class Lectures in the same reference list
Within a given response, if you have two or more sources by the same author in the same year, use lower-case letters (a, b, c) with the year to order the entries in the reference list. Use the lower-case letters with the year in the in-text citation.
Research by Berndt (1981a) revealed strong correlations. However, a parallel study (Berndt, 1981b) resulted in inconclusive findings.
Examples of citing multiple lectures. In-Text Citation: In the Week 8 lecture (Rahman, 2023a), we learned about the phenomenon of news desert, which also indicates a strong need for regulating private media, argued by Rahman (2023b).
References:
Rahman, A. (2023a). Week 8: Media regulation [in-person lecture]. Slide: Federal Communications Commissions. University of Washington, Introduction to Communication Course Canvas: https://canvas.uw.edu/
Rahman, A. (2023b). Week 11: Political communication [in-person lecture]. Slide: Public opinion and polling. University of Washington, Introduction to Communication Course Canvas: https://canvas.uw.edu/
4. Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policies
It is your responsibility to read and understand the University’s definitions of academic and personal misconduct. Plagiarism is a serious violation of the Student Conduct Code (http://www.washington.edu/students/handbook/conduct.htmlLinks to an external site.). Plagiarism is any representation of another person’s words or ideas in a manner that makes it seem as if they were your own. This means that you may not copy another person’s paper partly or fully. It also means that you should not use another person’s unique phrases or organizational schemes without making it clear to your audience where those words or ideas originated. To detect plagiarism, this course uses the Turn-it-in for all paper submissions (https://help.turnitin.com/integrity/student/canvas.htmLinks to an external site.). The tool is integrated into the Canvas submission system. You must check the similarity report in the “Submission Details” when you upload your paper. The system flags any similarity with previously submitted work or online content by a percentage score. The only acceptable similarity is the question prompt and/or any references and properly cited direct quotes, with page numbers wherever applicable. Except for statements with direct quotes, in each sentence, if five consecutive words match word for word between a student’s work and another source, that is a sign that the work is plagiarized. To avoid unintentional plagiarism, you can rework and resubmit your paper as needed, but only until the deadline. Avoid sharing your ideas or drafts with others as all parties involved in a plagiarism case will receive no credit and there will not be a second chance and the case will be immediately reported to the University’s Committee on Academic Conduct: http://www.washington.edu/students/handbook/conduct.htmlLinks to an external site.
5. Use of Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Model (AI/LLM)
AI/LLM-powered text generators like ChatGPT are powerful tools that are increasingly used by many. While they can be incredibly useful for some tasks (such as proofreading, which is acceptable in this course), they are not a substitute for your own learning of the material, critical thinking abilities, and acquiring writing skills. Large language models are trained to predict and reproduce sequences of words on a large scale, not to understand anything. Learning how to use AI-powered tool well is a skill that takes time to develop. Moreover, there are many drawbacks to using AI-powered text generators for assignments and quiz answers, including hallucinating and generating false data and fake references.
Using the tool to generate an answer and claiming it as your own is plagiarism.
If the tool provides incorrect or plagiarized information and you use it on an assignment, you are held accountable for it. Citing the text generator as a source or disclosing its use will not excuse you from the plagiarism or inaccuracies it may result in. The AI-LLM tools are not familiar with our class materials and, as such, will not draw from that material when generating answers. This will result in answers that are obviously not created by someone enrolled in the course and, therefore, are likely to affect your grade severely.
Regardless of whether your work is original or written/edited by AI-powered tools, you may receive a grade of F or D if your assignment fails to show accurate use of relevant course materials and proper citation of appropriate lecture sources.
The same policy applies to the use of an external writer or copy-editor.
6. Grading and Grade Appeals Policy
You will receive an automatic notification when a grade/score is posted. Please make sure to check your grades promptly. If you wish to contest a grade, please submit a written appeal within two days of receiving the score to your TA. An appeal submitted later will not be considered. Merely stating that your paper deserves higher marks is insufficient. In your appeal, clearly and logically explain why you believe the grading is incorrect or specify which specific criteria from the grading rubric you believe warrant higher marks and provide reasoning to support your argument. It is important to focus your appeal on the merits of your own work and not make comparisons with other students’ grades.
7. Sample Response.
Below you will find is a sample essay with question, response, citation, and reference/bibliography, which was written by a student in a previous quarter. Do not copy or reuse any part from this sample essay as doing so will flag your paper for plagiarism.
Prompt:
In lecture, we used this definition of Communication: “A systemic process in which people interact with and through symbols to create and interpret meanings” (Wood, 2017). Provide and discuss an example for each of the four underlined aspects of this definition (systemic; process; symbols; create and interpret meanings).
Response:
The definition of Communication includes various aspects that elaborate upon the field of study. The emphasized words within the definition of Communication can be exemplified through certain concepts. Communication is systemic, meaning that it’s “based on preexisting meanings that have previously been socially constructed” (Rahman, 2022). An example of this is seen in languages, as words in every language have already been defined and are collectively understood to have specific meanings by speakers of each language that exists. Therefore, languages are based upon a system that is already in place, as people continue to learn and speak the same languages that already exist and have defined words carrying particular interpretations. Communication involves a process because it gradually evolves throughout generations (Rahman, 2022). Languages were created dynamically, as new words and connotations were added throughout history, and the new additions to each language built upon the foundational characteristics that were already established, including grammar. For instance, the evolution of slang terms is a very dynamic process, as new words and phrases with certain meanings are constantly being created and popularized. Furthermore, slang terms are often based upon words that already exist, as the new terms are usually shorter versions or abbreviations of longer words or phrases.
Communication also features symbols, which “represents [meaning] through things and words” that humans utilize to convey certain meanings and are often widely understood (Rahman, 2022). In the modern digital age, memes are an example of symbols that are commonly used on the Internet to illustrate specific meanings. For instance, memes can be used to signify comedic situations through text and images, which are often relatable to many people depending on their race, gender, class, and relationship status among other pre-existing factors (Kanai, 2016). Therefore, memes symbolize collective experiences that many Internet users face throughout their life. Creating and interpreting meanings is also a goal of Communication, as humans interact through this process of generating a social reality (Rahman, 2022). An example of this would be the creation of political parties. The Democratic and Republican parties were created in America to give people a way to convey their beliefs to the government, as well as identify with specific political agendas. After the two main political parties in America were established, meanings were interpreted by members attaching certain ideals to what each party stands for. For example, Democrats tend to believe in providing healthcare for all. However, these ideals are constantly being built upon as new political issues arise, such as how combating climate change has recently become an important issue to many Democrats. As a result, the meanings that were originally created and attached to being a member of either political party evolve in their interpretations throughout time.
Word count, excluding references: 452
Reference:
Kanai, A. (2016). Sociality and classification: Reading gender, race, and class in a humorous meme. Social Media+ Society, 2(4):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116672884Links to an external site.
Rahman, A. (2022). Week 1: What is Communication [in-person lecture]. Slide: Defining and Styding Communication. University of Washington, Introduction to Communication Course Canvas: https://canvas.uw.edu/
8. Course Paper 3 Prompts
Please respond to any of the four options from the five choices below. No need to repeat or copy-paste the prompts into your paper; just make sure to state the choice number (for instance, Prompt #1) in your paper. Please pay careful attention to the customized grading rubric outlined below each question. We will use this rubric for grading your paper. All responses must contain in-text citations of appropriate lecture materials and provide a bibliography at the end of each response. The in-text citation must match the references in the bibliography. Include a word count at the end of each response, excluding the bibliography.
Prompt 1. Drawing from Week 8 lectures, write an essay that first explains the detrimental effects of media and internet ownership concentration on public interest journalism as discussed in the lectures and readings. Then, taking a specific case of an industry ownership concentration in media, telecom or internet companies from the lecture (choose one from Newscorp, Viacom, Sony, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T), take a stance on whether the FCC should regulate such concentration of ownership in that particular industry. Provide reasons for your position, supported by examples and arguments from the lecture and readings, especially from Pickard (2019, 2023).
Grading Rubric:
A. Exceptional (90-100 points):
The response provides a comprehensive and insightful explanation of the detrimental effects of media and internet ownership concentration on public interest journalism, drawing extensively from Week 8 lectures and Pickard (2019, 2023) readings.
The essay takes a clear and well-supported stance on whether the FCC should regulate ownership concentration, offering a nuanced analysis that considers various perspectives.
The rationale for the chosen stance is thoroughly developed, incorporating relevant concepts and arguments discussed in the Week 8 lectures
and Pickard (2019, 2023) readings.
The response demonstrates a deep understanding of the Week 8 lectures and reading contents, with accurate citations and a correct bibliography.
B. Proficient (80-89 points):
The explanation of the detrimental effects of media and internet ownership concentration on public interest journalism is effective, utilizing key concepts from Week 8 lectures and Pickard (2019, 2023) readings
The essay takes a stance on FCC regulation with a good level of support, though there may be some gaps in depth or exploration of counterarguments.
The rationale for the chosen stance is well-developed, referencing lecture and reading materials appropriately.
The response shows a good understanding of the Week 8 lecture and reading contents, with mostly accurate citations and a correct bibliography.
C. Developing (70-79 points):
The explanation of the detrimental effects of media and internet ownership concentration is provided but may lack depth or clarity or the discussion may not be fully based on Week 8 lectures and Pickard (2019, 2023) readings specific cases.
The essay takes a stance on FCC regulation, but the support may be limited or lacking in nuance.
The rationale for the chosen stance is presented, but it may lack depth or fail to incorporate Week 8 key lecture and reading concepts effectively.
The response demonstrates a basic understanding of the Week 8 lecture and reading contents, with some inaccuracies in citations or a few minor errors in the bibliography.
D. Limited (60-70 points):
The explanation of the detrimental effects of media and internet ownership concentration is minimal and lacks clarity. The discussion is clearly not based on Week 8 lecture and reading specific cases.
The essay takes a stance on FCC regulation, but the support is weak or insufficient, with limited consideration of opposing views.
The rationale for the chosen stance may be unclear or poorly developed, with minimal reference to lecture and reading materials.
The response exhibits a limited understanding of the lecture and reading contents, with inaccuracies in citations and noticeable errors in the bibliography.
F. Fail (Below 60 points):
The explanation of the detrimental effects of media and internet ownership concentration is absent or fundamentally flawed. The discussion is clearly not based on Week 8 lecture and reading specific cases.
The essay does not effectively take a stance on FCC regulation, lacking support or coherence.
The rationale for the chosen stance is missing or severely underdeveloped, with little or no reference to Week 8 lecture and reading materials.
The response shows a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of engagement with the lecture and reading contents, with major errors in citations or an entirely missing bibliography.
Prompt 2. Based on the Week 8 lectures and assigned readings, write an essay on the necessity of public internet and net neutrality in the United States, focusing on ownership concentration and its impact on consumers and democracy, and the changing roles of the FCC in this regard. Be sure to mention the key arguments made by Bradley, Pickard & Neff, and Minhaj. In the conclusion, take a stand on whether you agree or disagree with their views and explain your reasoning. To get a good score, your response needs to show specific knowledge of the Week 8 lectures and sources mentioned here.
Grading Rubric:
A. Exceptional (90-100 points):
The response provides a comprehensive and insightful explanation of the necessity of public internet and net neutrality, drawing extensively from Week 8 lectures and readings.
The essay offers a detailed analysis of ownership concentration and its impact on consumers and democracy, thoroughly discussing the changing roles of the FCC.
The key arguments made by Bradley, Pickard & Neff, and Minhaj are clearly and accurately presented.
The conclusion takes a clear and well-supported stand on whether to agree or disagree with the views, offering a nuanced analysis that considers various perspectives.
The rationale for the chosen stance is thoroughly developed, incorporating relevant concepts and arguments from the Week 8 lectures and readings.
The response demonstrates a deep understanding of the Week 8 lecture content, with accurate citations and a correct bibliography.
B. Proficient (80-89 points):
The explanation of the necessity of public internet and net neutrality is effective, utilizing key concepts from Week 8 lectures and readings.
The essay provides a good analysis of ownership concentration and its impact on consumers and democracy, discussing the changing roles of the FCC.
The key arguments made by Bradley, Pickard & Neff, and Minhaj are presented accurately.
The conclusion takes a stand on whether to agree or disagree with the views, with a good level of support, though there may be some gaps in depth or exploration of counterarguments.
The rationale for the chosen stance is well-developed, referencing lecture materials appropriately.
The response shows a good understanding of the Week 8 lecture content, with mostly accurate citations and a correct bibliography.
C. Developing (70-79 points):
The explanation of the necessity of public internet and net neutrality is provided but may lack depth or clarity, and the discussion may not fully utilize Week 8 lectures and readings.
The essay analyzes ownership concentration and its impact on consumers and democracy, but the discussion of the changing roles of the FCC may be limited.
The key arguments made by Bradley, Pickard & Neff, and Minhaj are presented but may lack accuracy or completeness.
The conclusion takes a stand on whether to agree or disagree with the views, but the support may be limited or lacking in nuance.
The rationale for the chosen stance is presented, but it may lack depth or fail to incorporate key concepts from the Week 8 lectures and readings effectively.
The response demonstrates a basic understanding of the Week 8 lecture content, with some inaccuracies in citations or a few minor errors in the bibliography.
D. Limited (60-70 points):
The explanation of the necessity of public internet and net neutrality is minimal and lacks clarity. The discussion does not fully utilize Week 8 lectures and readings.
The essay provides a weak analysis of ownership concentration and its impact on consumers and democracy, with limited discussion of the changing roles of the FCC.
The key arguments made by Bradley, Pickard & Neff, and Minhaj are poorly presented or misunderstood.
The conclusion takes a stand on whether to agree or disagree with the views, but the support is weak or insufficient, with limited consideration of opposing views.
The rationale for the chosen stance may be unclear or poorly developed, with minimal reference to lecture materials.
The response exhibits a limited understanding of the Week 8 lecture content, with inaccuracies in citations and noticeable errors in the bibliography.
F. Fail (Below 60 points):
The explanation of the necessity of public internet and net neutrality is absent or fundamentally flawed. The discussion does not utilize Week 8 lectures and readings.
The essay lacks a coherent analysis of ownership concentration and its impact on consumers and democracy, with little or no discussion of the changing roles of the FCC.
The key arguments made by Bradley, Pickard & Neff, and Minhaj are absent or fundamentally misunderstood.
The conclusion does not effectively take a stand on whether to agree or disagree with the views, lacking support or coherence.
The rationale for the chosen stance is missing or severely underdeveloped, with little or no reference to Week 8 lecture materials.
The response shows a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of engagement with the lecture content, with major errors in citations or an entirely missing bibliography.
Prompt 3. In Week 9 Tuesday lecture on cultural imperialism, Professor Rahman argued that the examples of Aladdin, Valeria, Desi Hoppers, Lincoln, and Kong: Skull Island demonstrate how the new era of cultural imperialism works through regional co-production and co-optation at the local level. Write an essay that elaborates on the political economic and cultural logics (such as global ownership concentration, horizontal integration, vertical integration, transnational co-production, global flow, talent co-optation, orientalism, race, class, etc., whichever are applicable) of any ONE of the following examples: Aladdin, Valeria, Desi Hoppers, Lincoln, and Kong: Skull Island.
This analysis should constitute about two-third of the essay and should include relevant definitions and in-depth explanations drawing from Week 9 lecture on cultural imperialism. Then present your agreement or a possible counterargument to these logics, incorporating an external example of your choice. This concluding section should weigh about one-third of the essay. To be clear, your essay should detail one examples from the class (as discussed in the Week 9 lectures) and one external example.
Grading Rubric:
A. Exceptional (90-100 points):
The student provides a comprehensive and insightful elaboration on the political economic and cultural logics of one chosen case from Week 9 lecture on cultural imperialism.
In-depth explanations from the lectures are skillfully integrated, demonstrating a deep understanding of the discussed concepts.
The essay concludes with a well-developed and nuanced presentation of the student’s agreement or a counterargument to the identified logics, incorporating a relevant and well-explained example.
The response exhibits a thorough understanding of the Week 9 content, with accurate citations and a correct bibliography.
B. Proficient (80-89 points):
The student effectively elaborates on the political economic and cultural logics of two chosen cases, drawing from Week 9 lecture on cultural imperialism.
In-depth explanations from the lectures are presented, showcasing a good understanding of the discussed concepts.
The essay concludes with a reasonably developed presentation of the student’s agreement or a counterargument to the identified logics, incorporating a relevant example.
The response demonstrates a solid understanding of Week 9 lecture content, with mostly accurate citations and a correct bibliography.
C. Developing (70-79 points):
The student provides a basic elaboration on the political economic and cultural logics of one chosen case, with some reliance on Week 9 lectures lecture on cultural imperialism.
Explanations from the lectures may lack depth or clarity, indicating a limited understanding of the discussed concepts.
The essay concludes with a presentation of the student’s agreement or a counterargument to the identified logics, but it may be underdeveloped or lacking in depth, and the example may be somewhat unclear.
The response demonstrates a basic understanding of the Week 9 lecture content, with some inaccuracies in citations or a few minor errors in the bibliography.
D. Limited (60-70 points):
The student provides a minimal or unclear elaboration on the political economic and cultural logics of two chosen cases, with weak integration of Week 9 lectures lecture on cultural imperialism.
Explanations from the lectures are superficial or lack clarity, indicating a limited understanding of the discussed concepts.
The essay concludes with a limited presentation of the student’s agreement or a counterargument to the identified logics, lacking depth and clarity, and the example may be weakly connected.
The response exhibits a limited understanding of the Week 9 lecture content, with inaccuracies in citations and noticeable errors in the bibliography.
F. Fail (Below 60 points):
The student does not effectively elaborate on the political economic and cultural logics of two chosen cases, with major flaws in the integration of Week 9 lecture on cultural imperialism.
Explanations from the lectures are absent or fundamentally flawed, indicating a lack of understanding of the discussed concepts.
The essay lacks a clear or coherent conclusion regarding the student’s agreement or a counterargument to the identified logics, and the example is either missing or poorly connected.
The response shows a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of engagement with the Week 9 lecture content, with major errors in citations or an entirely missing bibliography.
Prompt 4. In Week 9 Thursday lecture on global media flows / cultural globalization, Professor Rahman argued that cases like Hybrid Bharatham, Kala Chashma remakes, Bahubali, and RRR show successful evidence of global counter-flow and South-to-South media exchanges, although with some major limitations. Write an essay that elaborates on the political economic and cultural logics (such as local ownership, regional competition and diversity, global counter flow, hybridity, ethnic language, diaspora, fandom etc., whichever are applicable). Conclude your essay by presenting a similar example highlighting the limitation of the cultural globalization thesis.
This analysis should constitute about two-third of the essay and should include relevant definitions and in-depth explanations drawing from Week 9 lecture on global media flows / cultural globalization. Then present your agreement or a possible counterargument to these logics, incorporating an external example of your choice. This concluding section should weigh about one-third of the essay. To be clear, your essay should detail one examples from the class (as discussed in the Week 9 lectures) and one external example.
Grading Rubric:
A. Exceptional (90-100 points):
The essay provides a comprehensive and insightful elaboration on the political economic
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.