English 101
| ENG 102 Proposal Letter Rubric | |||||
| Points
2 Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
English 101
Get an essay WRITTEN FOR YOU, Plagiarism free, and by an EXPERT!
F |
Points
3 D-/D/D+ |
Points
3.5 C-/C/C+ |
Points
4 B-/B/B+ |
Points
5 A-/A/A+ |
|
| Thesis & Focus
Thesis, central idea, audience, purpose, digressions |
Lacks an identifiable thesis. Limited or no awareness of audience and purpose.
Readers cannot discern the letter’s central idea. |
Thesis was attempted but unclear and/or inconsistently addressed. Reveals limited awareness of audience and purpose. Central idea either lacking or inconsistently addressed. | Thesis is identifiable, but perhaps too narrow, too broad, or otherwise problematic. Awareness of audience may be adequate but inconsistent. Central idea is perhaps too general and supported by irrelevant examples. | Thesis is established and is consistently addressed throughout most of the letter. Awareness of audience is sufficient. Central idea is clear and maintained in most of the letter. | Thesis is clearly established and maintained throughout the entire letter. Letter demonstrates a sophisticated awareness of audience and purpose. Central idea/focus maintained throughout. |
| Support & Development
Thesis support, thesis development; explanation of problem, proposal, argument, counterargument; use of examples, logic, and reason
|
No support of thesis with relevant facts, examples, reasons, or evidence. No topic development. Little-to-no argument is present. Topic development is flawed or non-existent. | Support is minimal, logically flawed, and/or inaccurate.
The problem, proposal, main argument, and counterargument may be partially absent or addressed very ineffectively. Topic development may have been attempted, but does not form conclusions and/or fails to exhibit clear reasoning. |
More support is needed. Some examples may be vague. The problem, proposal, main argument, and counterargument are all present but perhaps addressed somewhat ineffectively. Some irrelevant support may be present, but most evidence supports thesis. | Support is sufficient but perhaps flawed in some way.
The problem, proposal, main argument, and counterargument are all addressed in a mostly effectively way. Thesis is supported and developed in most paragraphs. |
Letter completely supports the thesis with logical arrangement of evidence. The problem, proposal, main argument, and counterargument are all addressed very effectively.
All assertions are supported and relate to thesis. |
| Coherence & Organization
Introduction, conclusion, body paragraphs, transitions, topic sentences |
No clear introduction, body, or conclusion. Little-to-no transitions. Demonstrates little-to-no understanding of organization. Many sentences within paragraphs do not relate to each other and/or the paragraph’s topic. May contain no discernable topic sentences.
|
Introduction, body, and conclusion attempted but problematic. Few transitions. Perhaps numerous digressions. Mostly missing or problematic topic sentences. Demonstrates little understanding of organization. | Identifiable introduction, body, and conclusion; yet one significant weakness is present: undeveloped introduction, undeveloped conclusion, illogical paragraph order. Adequate transitions, perhaps some digressions. Some paragraphs may lack clear topic sentences.
Demonstrates basic understanding of organization. |
Clear introduction, body, and conclusion although improvements could be made. Most paragraphs have clear topic sentences. Letter establishes a clear plan of development. Transitions are clear throughout most of the letter. Demonstrates good understanding of organization. | Clear and effective introduction, body, and conclusion: Introduction establishes the letter’s main idea, and conclusion summarizes thesis and main ideas without merely copying and pasting from the introduction. Clear and effective transitions are present throughout the letter. Demonstrates excellent understanding of organization. |
| Language & Style
Word choice, repetition, redundancy, awkwardness, article misuse, wrong word form (their/there, etc.), typos/misspellings, vocabulary |
May contain more than 6 errors in word choice, wordiness, redundancy, or awkwardness.
May contain more than 6 errors in inappropriate language for academic audience. Fails to demonstrate competent language use; sentences and vocabulary are inappropriate, facile, and/or incoherent.
|
May contain 6 errors in word choice, wordiness, redundancy, or awkwardness.
May contain 6 errors in inappropriate language for academic audience. Contains repetitive, incorrect, and/or insufficient sentence structure and/or limited vocabulary. |
May contain 4 – 5 errors in word choice, wordiness, redundancy, or awkwardness.
May contain 2 – 3 errors in inappropriate language for academic audience. Demonstrates competency with language use but sentence constructions and vocabulary may be limited or repetitive. |
May contain 2 – 3 errors in word choice, wordiness, redundancy, or awkwardness.
May contain 2 – 3 errors in inappropriate language for academic audience. Demonstrates sufficient knowledge and skill with varied sentence construction and vocabulary. Unnecessary repetition is minor. |
May contain 1 error in word choice, wordiness, redundancy, or awkwardness.
May contain 1 error in inappropriate language for academic audience. Demonstrates sophisticated knowledge and skill with varied and complex sentence construction and vocabulary. Little-to-no unnecessary repetition. |
| Grammar
Fragments, subject-verb agreement, verb tense errors, verb form errors, run-ons, pronoun agreement |
Contains more than 5 different grammar errors.
The identical 3 – 4 errors may be repeated throughout.
|
Contains 4 – 5 different grammar errors. The identical 2 – 3 errors may be repeated throughout. | Contains 2 – 3 different grammar errors. The identical 1 – 2 errors may be repeated throughout. | Contains 1 grammar error, which may be repeated throughout the letter. | Contains either no grammar errors, or 1 – 2 different errors with no repetition. |
| Punctuation & Capitalization
Comma errors, comma splices, apostrophe errors, capitalization errors, semicolon errors, colon errors |
Contains more than 5 different punctuation/capitalization errors.
The identical 3 – 4 errors may be repeated throughout.
|
Contains 4 – 5 different punctuation/capitalization errors. The identical 2 – 3 errors may be repeated throughout. | Contains 2 – 3 different punctuation/capitalization errors. The identical 1 – 2 errors may be repeated throughout. | Contains 1 punctuation/capitalization error, which may be repeated throughout the letter. | Contains either no punctuation/capitalization error, or 1 – 2 different errors with no repetition. |
| Format
Letter format must be used; see second page of assignment instructions for model
*Length for argumentative is 500 words minimum |
Doesn’t meet formatting requirements:
Formatting may be missing four or more elements (inappropriate spacing or margins, various elements of letter heading/format).
Length may not meet minimum requirements.
|
Doesn’t meet most formatting requirements:
Formatting may be missing three elements (inappropriate spacing or margins, various elements of letter heading/format).
Length may not meet minimum requirements.
|
Meets some formatting requirements:
Formatting may be missing two elements (inappropriate spacing or margins, various elements of letter heading/format).
Length may not meet minimum requirements (an letter that does not meet length minimum will score no higher than 3 in this category) |
Meets most formatting requirements:
Formatting may be missing one element (inappropriate spacing or margins, various elements of letter heading/format).
Length meets minimum requirements of 500 words. |
Meets all requirements.
Formatting is appropriate in terms of letter format, margins, and spacing
Length meets minimum requirements of 500 words. |
| Use of Research
& MLA
Source minimums, incorporation of sources (including use of signal phrases), use of research to argue topic, Works Cited list
This letter requires at least three sources: student’s interview + two other credible sources. |
Source minimum requirements are not met.
Research is insufficient, irrelevant, or inadequate. Sources are not incorporated at all, or are done very poorly.
No use of signal phrases (parentheticals are not required for this letter).
Works Cited page either omitted or formatted very poorly. It may be difficult or impossible to discern which sources are in the list. |
Source minimum requirements may not be met (Note: If source minimum is not met, the letter will score no higher than 2 in this category).
Research is superficial and/or sources are incorporated poorly.
Ineffective use of signal phrases (parentheticals are not required for this letter).
Works Cited page may contain significant formatting errors, and some sources may be omitted from the list. |
Source minimum requirements (student’s interview + two other credible sources) are met.
Research may be superficial, sources may be poorly incorporated.
Somewhat ineffective use of signal phrases (parentheticals are not required for this letter).
Works Cited page may contain significant formatting errors, but all sources are listed. |
Source minimum requirements (student’s interview + two other credible sources) are met.
Fairly thorough research with mostly effective use of sources.
Good use of signal phrases (parentheticals are not required for this letter).
Works Cited page may contain minor formatting errors, but all sources are clearly listed. |
Source minimum requirements (student’s interview + two other credible sources) are met. Thoroughly researches the topic, uses sources effectively.
Excellent use of signal phrases (parentheticals are not required for this letter).
Works Cited page may contain minor formatting errors, but all sources are clearly listed. |
ANSWER
(Insert Your Address and Name)
April 8, 2022
The Hon. David Holt
Mayor of Oklahoma City
200 N Walker Ave., Third Floor
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Dear Mayor xxx
The issue of global warming is not a new topic but a growing concern nonetheless. The world is changing at a rapid rate, and the effects of global warming are evident now more than ever. The issue, I believe, can be narrowed down to people’s lack of accountability, especially in their pursuit of sustaining a good environment. Global warming and other environmental hazards are a result of many reasons, including the importer disposal of waste from industries, deforestation, smoke emissions from vehicles and factories, improper dumping sites, and oil spills in water bodies, among others. At a personal level, people individually contribute to waste in various ways, especially due to the lack of knowledge surrounding recycling. Recycling, which is the reuse of salvageable waste, is integral to promoting a healthy environment. This proposal, however, is centered on recycling in schools. According to various data, every student contributes to around 45kg of waste annually. Many schools, especially in the US, do not have the appropriate knowledge and systems in place that support recycling. This research proposal advocates for the installation of recycling systems in our school to help reduce our carbon footprint.
To achieve this proposal, the schools shall need to be actively engaged in the process, while funding to set up a recycling system would be needed from your office. The proposal for a proper and effective recycling system shall be introduced gradually. First, to reduce waste in school, recycling bins will be installed around the school in strategic positions. Students will be encouraged to utilize recycling bins while dumping various waste. The bins will be properly labeled according to the waste. For instance, plastic, paper, or wood will be labeled, and the students will be required to dump their waste according to the label. An effective way of ensuring that the students use the bean is by allowing them to design the posters for the bins. This will help them feel actively involved in the process, develop a positive attitude towards the bin, and increase their chances of using them.
The second step towards introducing a recycling system at school would be a school composting scheme. This is more complex compared to bins, and hence a necessary audit will be required. The purpose of the audit will be to analyze the type, and quantity of waste thrown away and how developed the composting scheme will be. The advantage of developing a composting scheme will enable the school to get a study reference, including the study of gardening, issues involving food waste, and other microbiological organisms.
The third implementation method will be to train teachers and staff personnel about the recycling systems and introduce the topic of the environment in classrooms. An effective recycling system will not be effective if the staff and teachers do not understand them. They are the ones who will be close to the students and act as supervisors to ensure that the students use them when necessary. In addition, getting the students to think about the environment will help them understand the importance of recycling systems and how their individual contributions impact the environment as a whole. It is paramount that the students develop a positive mindset about the environment and also learn how the repercussions of their contributions.
Setbacks, like any other newly introduced systems, will be expected. At our school, there are certain students who will be reluctant to use the systems or even purposely use the wrong bins just to push their limits. However, there will be a regular and strict watch on the use of the recycling systems, and students who will be found misusing them for the purpose of their own entertainment will be subject to punishment.
Sincerely,
First Name Last Name
