Data does not strongly reinforce the main purpose. Application of the principles of critical thinking and discussions reflect a moderate understanding. Professionalism and accountability are usually manifested. Serious error in the use of English is avoided. Logic is weak.
Writer lacks the vigor of critical thinking and expression which merit a higher rating.
Minimal understanding of critical thinking. Professionalism and accountability are occasionally evidenced. The conception and expression of ideas are incorrect or ineffective. Data is inadequately incorporated. Understanding and application of informal logic is lacking throughout.