BUSN 201 Writing Assignment Rubric NO ABSTRACTS PLEASE .docx

BUSN 201 Writing Assignment Rubric
NO ABSTRACTS PLEASE
Credit Given to Information in the Body of Assignment Only
CRITERIA Not Demonstrated Deficient Competent Proficient
Content
60 Possible
Points
Little or no analysis
(IRAC) used in
assignment.
20 points
Some analysis (some
indication of IRAC
used) and more
recitation of facts.

40-45 points
Adequate analysis
(more than enough
indication IRAC used)
in assignment and at
least one original
example included in
analysis.
46-57 points
Excellent analysis
(IRAC used
throughout). Clear
and original thoughts
(at least two original
examples included) in
response. 58-60
points
Outside

Source(s)
20 Possible
Points
Little to no outside
source provided.
8-0 points
Provides some
reference to outside
source information. 9
points
Provides at least one
external quality
resource.
10-17 points
Provides at least two
external quality
resources.
20 points

Grammar
10 Possible
Points
More than 10
proofreading errors
(e.g., spelling,
grammar,
punctuation, word
choice, syntax),
which makes it
difficult to read.
6 points
Less than 10 but more
than 4 proofreading
errors (e.g., spelling,
grammar, punctuation,
word choice, syntax).

7 points
Four or fewer
proofreading errors
(e.g., spelling,
grammar, punctuation,
word choice, syntax).
8 points
Fewer than four
proofreading errors
(e.g., spelling,
grammar,
punctuation, word
choice, syntax).

9-10 points
APA
Documentation
10 Possible
Points
Little or no APA
citation of sources.
Only reference
page/bibliography
provided.
2 points
Some attempt at APA
citation, but
assignment contains
errors (more than four)
in citation and or
reference page/

bibliography.
6-5 points
APA citation of sources
and APA reference
page/bibliography with
a few errors (less than
four)
8-7 points
Excellent in text
citations and APA
reference
page/bibliography
10 points

PHSC 210
Discussion Board Forum 2 Prompt
Topic: Current Young-Earth Research
Thread:
In this 350 word (minimum) discussion board thread, you will
choose from 1 of 10 current young-Earth Institute for Creation
Research articles based on your interest. Follow these steps:
1. Choose ONE of the following a current young-Earth articles
from the list below.
a. Oil, Fracking and Recent Global Flood
(http://www.icr.org/article/oil-fracking-recent-global-flood/)
b. Dinosaur Fossils in Late Flood Rocks
(http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-fossils-late-flood-rocks)
c. The Ice Age and Scattering of the Nations
(http://www.icr.org/article/ice-age-scattering-nations/)
d. Dinosaur Soft Tissues: They’re Real!
(http://www.icr.org/article/4819)
e. World’s Most Catastrophic Extinction
(http://www.icr.org/article/worlds-most-catastrophic-extinction)
f. Is there Geological Evidence for the Young Earth?
(http://www.icr.org/article/there-geological-evidence-for-
young-earth)
g. The Ice Age: Causes and Consequences
(http://www.icr.org/article/4788)
h. Dinosaur Fossils Found in Marine Rocks…Again
(http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-fossils-found-marine-
rocksagain)
i. One-Hour Oil Production? (http://www.icr.org/article/one-
hour-oil-production/)
j. Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable
(http://www.icr.org/article/radioactive-decay-rates-not-stable)
2. Read the article by clicking on the matching link to the

article in the Reading and Study Folder > Discussion Board 2
Article Links for this module (or copy and paste a link above
into your browser).
3. In 3 to 5 paragraphs, include the following in your thread:
a. The author and title of the article.
b. A summary the main finding(s) of the article.
c. A discussion the significance of the findings.
d. Your reasons for choosing this article.
e. A short concluding sentence or two.
f. (No bibliography is needed unless other sources are included.
Cite using APA formatting. Also, provide in-text citations, as
appropriate.).
Replies: (Two 100-word replies are required)
After reading a classmate’s thread, answer the following
questions in a minimum of 100 words:
1. What most interested you about your classmate’s thread?
2. Is there anything you want to add to your classmate’s thread?
3. Are there any unanswered questions in the thread?
Submit your thread by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of the
Module/Week of the assignment and submit your replies by
11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of the same module/week.
Page 1 of 1
Scanned by CamScanner
BUSN201
. Business Law

.
Ivy Tech Community College
.
2017
Model Answer in IRAC Format
Laws are important to society. Many laws make up our legal
system. One type of
law is a criminal law.
One issue for me is: Whether criminal laws have affected me in
some way?
Specifically, a law is simply a rule that governs conduct (Brown
& Suksy, 2013, p. 4).
One type of law is crimes, which are rules that cover offenses
against the public
punishable by the prosecutor of a nation or state (Brown &
Suksy, 2013, p. 87). Two
objectives of such laws include preserving order and stability
(Brown & Suksy, 2013, p.
87). One example is robbery, theft using a deadly weapon
(Brown & Suksy, 2013, p.
98).
In my case, my brother was affected by an offense against the
public when he

was walking home from work one day. Someone approached
him with a handgun. The
perpetrator did not shoot him but forcefully took his wallet. On
one hand, the perpetrator
might feel justified by such action. Perhaps even thinking a
sense of entitlement to take
what he wanted but there is another side too. This is clearly an
example of a crime. The
perpetrator threatened the safety of my brother—while in the
community. Without doubt,
“Yes,” criminal laws have affected me in some way.
Commented [V1]: This is an example of how to set up your
writing assignment. Make sure your writing assignments meet
the
suggested word count for the assignment.
Commented [V2]: There is an introduction paragraph with a
thesis. It is the last sentence of the first paragraph. Based on the
thesis, the body paragraph(s) should only support criminal law
issues. Notice my intro is general common knowledge. APA
reads
that common knowledge need not be cited. But, anytime you use
law it is not common knowledge so please cite.
Commented [V3]: I of IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application,
Conclusion). Review Appendix A “Legal Analysis and

Reasoning” on
page A-2 in the required text. Notice the issue in that appendix
begins with the word “whether” like in this handout. Please use
this
format. Specifically, the issue in the Appendix A-2 is: Whether
Quality Market’s failure to warn customers of the wet floor
constituted negligence? The issue here is: Whether criminal
laws
have affected me in some way?
Commented [V4]: R from IRAC (this entire paragraph). Notice,
this paragraph contains law only. For instance, if you say: A
tort
occurred when Valerie breached her duty of care. Valerie
participated in a wrongful act (other than a breach of contract)
so she
can get damages or an injunction. This is incorrect because as
written, the writer is saying that only Valerie can commit a tort.
Keep all law in general terms.
Moreover, since I did not create the law regarding venue, there
must be in-text citations. There should be no direct quotes
because
if a student simply copies what is in the textbook, this shows no
mastery of the law. And, there is no critical thinking in copying
and
pasting information into an answer.
Also, I give page numbers in each in-text citation. Full credit
will be
given to students who properly cite correct law, which contains
information that thoroughly covers the issue.

Commented [V5]: A from IRAC. This transition “In my case,”
begins the “A” in IRAC. The “A” stands for analysis. This
contains
both sides of an argument. Notice, each fact used is consistent
with
the law that is used in the paragraph above it (Rule of Law).
Commented [VLR6]: C of IRAC. . The conclusion should be
answered with “Yes” or “No” then simply write the
interrogatory as
a declaration.
EBSCO Publishing Citation Format: APA (American
Psychological Assoc.):
NOTE: Review the instructions at
http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=eds&lang=&feature_id=APA
and make
any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention
to personal names, capitalization, and
dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact
formatting and punctuation guidelines.
References
Timothy B., L. (10). 15 years ago, Congress kept Mickey Mouse
and Superman out of the public domain. Will
that happen again. Washington Post, The.

For most of history, a great character or story or song has
passed from its original creator into the
public domain. Shakespeare and Charles Dickens and
Beethoven are long dead, but Macbeth and
Oliver Twist and the Fifth Symphony are part of our
shared cultural heritage, free to be used or
reinvented by anyone on the planet who is so inclined.
But 15 years ago Sunday, President Clinton signed the Sonny
Bono Copyright Term Extension Act,
which retroactively extended copyright protection. As a result,
the great creative output of the 20th
century, from Superman to "Gone With the Wind" to Gershwin's
"Rhapsody in Blue," were locked down
for an extra 20 years.
It was a windfall for the families and corporations that owned
these lucrative copyrights. But it meant
these iconic works would be off-limits to those who
wanted to reuse or reinvent them without
permission. And hundreds of thousands of lesser-known works
aren't available at all, because there's

no cost-effective way to obtain permission to republish them.
The copyright extension that Clinton signed will expire in five
years. Copyright holders such as Disney
and the Gershwin estate have a strong incentive to try to extend
copyright extension yet further into the
future. But with the emergence of the Internet as a political
organizing tool, opponents of copyright
extension will be much better prepared. The question for the
coming legislative battle on copyright is
who will prevail: those who would profit from continuing to
lock up the great works of the 20th century,
or those who believe Bugs Bunny should be as freely
available for reuse as Little Red Riding
Hood.Longer and longer
Today, copyrights can easily last for more than a century.
Things were very different when the United
States was founded. In America's original copyright system,
protection lasted for only 28 years. By the
mid-20th century, Congress had doubled the maximum term to
56 years.
DISCOVER! - Ivy Tech North Central Libraries
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.southbend.libproxy.ivytech.edu/eds/d
elivery?s...
1 of 5 11/18/2016 3:55 PM
Then, in 1976, Congress overhauled the copyright system.
Instead of fixed terms with a maximum of

56 years of protection, individual authors were granted
protection for their life plus an additional 50
years, an approach that had become the norm in Europe.
For works authored by corporations -
Hollywood blockbusters, for example - copyright terms were
extended to 75 years.
The 1976 legislation granted a retroactive extension for works
published before the new system took
effect. The maximum term for already-published works was
lengthened from 56 years to 75 years. That
meant that any work that was still under copyright in 1978,
when the new system took effect, was
eligible for an additional 19 years of protection. Without the
term extension, works published between
1922 and 1941 would have fallen into the public domain
between 1978 and 1997.
Instead, those works remained under copyright, providing a
windfall for the owners of iconic
copyrighted works such as the original Mickey Mouse
cartoon, "Steamboat Willie," and George
Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue." When the 1990s arrived, the
holders of those older copyrights began
agitating for another extension. Copyrighted works from the
1920s were scheduled to begin falling into
the public domain again in 1998, and copyright interests
wanted Congress to stop that from
happening.Following Europe's lead
"There was not a single argument that actually can stand up to
any kind of reasonable analysis," says

Dennis Karjala, a law professor at Arizona State University who
emerged as a de facto leader of the
opposition to the law. The supporters of the law, Karjala says,
were "basically the Gershwin family trust,
grandchildren of Oscar Hammerstein, Disney, others of that
ilk" - that is, holders of copyrights in old
works that were on the verge of expiring.
Supporters of the extension pointed to Europe. In 1993, the
European Union added 20 years to the
term of European copyrights. Under European law, American
authors would enjoy longer copyright
terms in Europe only if the United States followed Europe's lead
and adopted "life plus 70" copyright
terms.
"It didn't seem like there was any reason why American creators
should be at a disadvantage vis-a-vis
their European counterparts," says Preston Padden, who
represented Disney in the late 1990s and is
now affiliated with the University of Colorado Law School.
"The old disparity invited mischief, like
American creators artificially creating legal domiciles for
Europe in order to gain the benefit of the
longer license term." And, advocates said, if Congress were
extending terms for new works, it would
only be fair to extend terms for existing works as well.
Critics pointed out that extending copyright terms
retroactively wouldn't benefit the public. After all,
William Faulkner, George Gershwin and Walt Disney had

died decades earlier. Granting longer
copyright terms for their works couldn't cause them to produce
any more masterpieces.
"To suggest that the monopoly use of copyrights for the
creator's life plus 50 years after his death is
not an adequate incentive to create is absurd," wrote Sen. Hank
Brown (R-Colo.) in a 1996 report for
the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The real incentive here
is for corporate owners that bought
copyrights to lobby Congress for another 20 years of revenue -
not for creators who will be long dead
once this term extension takes hold."
But Brown was in the minority. Indeed, Brown says, he was the
only opponent on the committee. "I
thought it was a moral outrage," says Brown, who left the
Senate after not running for reelection in 1996
Looking
elivery?s...
2 of 5 11/18/2016 3:55 PM
and now practices law in Colorado. "There wasn't anyone
speaking out for the public interest."A lonely
fight

Few members of Congress were opposed to the legislation, but
Karjala was working to rally opposition
to the legislation from outside Congress. The Copyright
Office asked for comments on extending
copyright terms in 1993. Karjala says he drafted a letter
opposing the idea and got 30 or 40 of his
fellow legal scholars to sign it. When Congress took up the idea
in 1995, people encouraged Karjala to
once again take a leading role. "I kind of groaned to myself,"
Karjala says. "I'm not an activist type of
personality, but I thought, 'I guess I've started on this
thing. I'm the only one who seems to be
sufficiently energized about it.' "
To actually stop the legislation, Karjala needed powerful allies.
And there were established groups that
he thought should be helping out. This was long before
Reddit and Wikipedia helped create a
grass-roots copyright movement. But Karjala says that nonprofit
groups representing professions such
as librarians and historians had traditionally served as public-
interest watchdogs on copyright issues.
And those groups had lobbyists who could have helped stop
copyright terms from being extended.
But his efforts to recruit them to fight term extension fell flat.
With the bill looking unstoppable, most of
these groups chose to make peace with the forces pushing the
bill. Karjala says they were "bought off"
by minor changes to the legislation that addressed specific
issues that concerned them. "In exchange,

they agreed not to oppose the rest of the bill," he says.
Brown did his best to slow progress on the bill. "I noted the
absence of a quorum several times," he
says, a tactic that delayed consideration of the legislation. "I
did my best to extend the debate."'A
hostage situation'
But the biggest reason the fight lasted as long as it did -
legislation was introduced in 1995, but it didn't
pass until 1998 - was that the restaurant industry saw the
campaign for term extension as an
opportunity to advance its own pet issue: getting a broader
exemption for small bars and restaurants
that played copyrighted music over the radio.
"This was a hostage situation," says Peter Jaszi, a law professor
at American University who also
testified against extending terms. Bars and restaurants
didn't care about term extensions, but they
threatened to bottle up the proposal unless they got their way.
Negotiations over the hospitality industry's demands slowed
the passage of the Copyright Term
Extension Act (CTEA). But eventually, policymakers agreed to
pass the Fairness in Music Licensing
Act, which addressed the hospitality industry's concerns, as
a companion bill. When bars and
restaurants dropped their opposition to term extension, the
legislation's remaining opponents weren't
powerful enough to stop it. It passed both houses of Congress
on Oct. 7, 1998, and was signed by
President Clinton on Oct. 27.

The retroactive extension of copyright terms soon drew a legal
challenge. Eric Eldred was an Internet
publisher who specialized in publishing works that were in the
public domain. Represented by legal
scholar Larry Lessig, Eldred became the lead plaintiff in a
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of
retroactively extending copyright terms.
The Constitution requires that copyrights be granted for a
limited time; Lessig argued that if Congress
elivery?s...
3 of 5 11/18/2016 3:55 PM
has the power to retroactively extend copyright terms, it
effectively has the power to grant unlimited
copyright terms on the installment plan. Ironically, the legal
battle against the CTEA drew much broader
public support than the legislative battle had. "Once Larry
Lessig brought the constitutional challenge, all
these same people came out of the woodwork," Karjala says of
people who hadn't engaged on the
issue when the legislation was before Congress. "They started
writing amicus briefs to argue [that] the
Supreme Court should rule it unconstitutional."Economists go
to bat

One brief was signed by some of the nation's most prominent
economists, including Nobel laureates
Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase and Kenneth Arrow. The
Constitution requires that copyright protection
promote the progress of science, but the economists pointed out
that the CTEA was hard to justify on
these terms. Copyright terms were already so long, they
argued, that an additional 20 years would
provide only minimal incentive to produce new works.
More to the point, retroactively extending
protection for existing works couldn't possibly encourage the
creation of new works.
But these arguments fell on deaf ears. Writing for a seven-
member majority in 2003, Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsberg ruled that Congress had broad discretion
to choose copyright terms and to
retroactively extend them as it saw fit. As long as the
terms remained finite, the court held, they
satisfied the court's "limited times" requirement.'They're going
to have to start doing it now'
The big question now is whether incumbent copyright holders
will try to get yet another extension of
copyright terms before works begin falling into the public
domain again on Jan. 1, 2019.
For now, Hollywood is staying mum; a spokesman for the
Motion Picture Association of America
declined to comment on its plans. We weren't able to find any
sign the topic has come up on Capitol
Hill. But most of the experts we spoke to said the stakes are so

high that a renewed lobbying push is
almost inevitable.
"If Hollywood and their allies want to do this, they're going to
have to start doing it now," says Chris
Sprigman, a legal scholar at New York University. "I would
imagine there are discussions going on."
Sprigman predicts that a debate over term extension over the
next five years will look very different
than it did in the 1990s. "People are paying attention," he says.
"There's a coalition now" that's likely to
oppose longer terms.
Indeed, Sprigman sees public outrage over the 1998 extension
as a catalyst for the copyright reform
movement that came of age with the protest that stopped the
Stop Online Piracy Act last year. "None
of that would have been possible without the loss in the CTEA
and Eldred," he argues.
One advantage opponents will have this time around is better
arguments and evidence. Public debate
over the last extension has stimulated increased academic
research into the economics of the public
domain; as a result, we know a lot more about the costs of
longer copyright terms than we did 20 years
ago.
One striking example: a study that looked at the availability on
Amazon.com of books published in the
last 200 years. Surprisingly, the study found that there are more
printed books available from the 1880s
than the 1980s. When books fall into the public domain, as

works from the 1880s have, anyone is free
to re-publish them. In contrast, books from the 1980s are
still in copyright, so only their original
copyright holder can give permission to distribute them. As a
result, older books are actually easier to
get online than newer books are. That means that the 1976
and 1998 extensions have deprived a
elivery?s...
4 of 5 11/18/2016 3:55 PM
generation of readers of easy access to books from the 1920s,
1930s, 1940s and 1950s.
Not only have many copyright holders failed to keep their older
works in print, but there are now many
books whose copyright holders can't be identified at all. In
many cases, the original copyright holder is
dead and records about who now holds the copyright aren't
available.
These "orphan works" have become a serious problem for
projects such as Google Books, which aims
to digitize books and make them available to the public.
Google can't obtain the rights to reproduce
these books at any price because it can't figure out whom it
needs to negotiate with. The older a work
is, the more likely it is to be orphaned, so copyright extensions
have made the problem much worse.

"There's no evidence suggesting that a longer term is
going to produce any more art, literature,"
Sprigman says. "The only reason to extend the term is to
give private benefits to companies like
Disney or Time Warner that have valuable properties like
Mickey Mouse or famous films."
But copyright, he says, is "not supposed to be about corporate
welfare for Disney." Over the next five
years, we'll find out if Congress agrees.
Source: Washington Post, The, 10/26/2013
Item: wapo.119b2ea2-3d7e-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e
elivery?s...
5 of 5 11/18/2016 3:55 PM

BUSN 201 Writing Assignment Rubric NO ABSTRACTS PLEASE .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to BUSN 201 Writing Assignment Rubric NO ABSTRACTS PLEASE .docx

Similar to BUSN 201 Writing Assignment Rubric NO ABSTRACTS PLEASE .docx (13)

More from RAHUL126667

More from RAHUL126667 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

BUSN 201 Writing Assignment Rubric NO ABSTRACTS PLEASE .docx