COMM1100 Case Study Analysis Marking Rubric
Failure to comply with the overall word limit will reduce your score (via Criterion 4) by one mark for exceeding the limit by more than 10% and by two
marks for exceeding it by more than 25%.
Unsatisfactory Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction
Criteria 1
Analysis
and
concepts
application
of
economic
(30%)
Fails to
identify
economic
concepts.

Discussion
is largely
irrelevant
and/or fails
to
incorporate
any
evidence
or draw on
course
concepts
A limited
understanding
of key
economic
concepts,
demonstrated
through an
identification of
some relevant
considerations.
Justifications
identify the
relevant legal
principles, and
provide limited
accurate
application of
the principles
to the case
study.
Evaluation of
decision may
demonstrate
some
understanding
of the interplay
between most
economic
considerations.
A proficient
understanding of key
economic concepts,
demonstrated
through an
explanation of
relevant
considerations with
accurate justification.
Justifications provide
relevant and
references to the
case study and
course concepts
including economic
illustrations/reasoning
where appropriate.
Evaluation of
decision is logical
and demonstrates an
understanding of the
interplay between
some of the essential
economic
considerations.
A strong
understanding of key
economic concepts,
demonstrated
through an analysis
of relevant
considerations in a
convincing and well
justified manner.
Justifications provide
relevant and specific
references to the
case study and
course concepts
including partially
correct economic
illustrations/reasoning
where appropriate.
Evaluation of
decision is logical,
insightful and
demonstrates an
understanding of the
interplay between the
most relevant
economic
considerations.
An advanced
understanding of key
economic concepts,
demonstrated
through an analysis
of relevant
considerations in a
nuanced, convincing
and well justified
manner. Justifications
provide highly
relevant and specific
references to the
case study and
course concepts
including detailed and
correct economic
illustrations/reasoning
where appropriate.
Evaluation of
decision is logical,
insightful and
demonstrates an in-
depth understanding
of the interplay
between the most
relevant economic
considerations.
An exceptional
understanding of key
economic concepts,
demonstrated
through a critical
analysis of relevant
considerations in a
consistently nuanced,
convincing and well
justified manner.
Justifications provide
highly relevant and
specific references to
the case study and
course concepts
including detailed and
correct economic
illustrations/reasoning
where appropriate.
Evaluation of
decision is logical,
insightful and
demonstrates an in-
depth understanding
of the interplay
between the various
economic
considerations.
COMM1100 Case Study Analysis Marking Rubric
Failure to comply with the overall word limit will reduce your score (via Criterion 4) by one mark for exceeding the limit by more than 10% and by two
marks for exceeding it by more than 25%.
Criteria 2
Evaluation
and
application of
legal
concepts
(30%)
Fails to
identify legal
concepts.
Discussion is
largely
irrelevant
and/or fails to
incorporate
any evidence
or draw on
course
concepts.
A limited
understanding of
key legal
concepts,
demonstrated
through an
identification of
some relevant
considerations.
Justifications
identify the
relevant legal
principles, and
provide limited
accurate
application of the
principles to the
case study.
Conclusions may
be somewhat
consistent with
reasoning.
A proficient
understanding of
key legal
concepts,
demonstrated
through an
explanation of
relevant
considerations
with accurate
justification.
Justifications
identify the
relevant legal
principles, and
provide
reasonable
application of the
principles to the
case study.
Conclusions are
logical, and
consistent with
reasoning.
A strong
understanding of
key legal
concepts,
demonstrated
through an
analysis of
relevant
considerations
with effective
justification.
Strong ability to
identify legal
issues, provide
analysis and
apply the relevant
case law,
legislation and/or
concept.
Justifications
provide
reasonable and
specific
application of the
principles to the
case study.
Conclusions are
logical, and
consistent with
reasoning.
An advanced
understanding of
key legal
concepts,
demonstrated
through an
analysis of
relevant
considerations in
a nuanced and
well justified
manner.
Demonstrates an
advanced ability
to identify legal
issues, provide
analysis and
apply the relevant
law or concept.
Justifications
provide a
convincing and
specific
application of the
principles to the
case study.
Conclusions are
logical, and
consistent with
reasoning and
evidence
provided.
An exceptional
understanding of
key legal concepts,
demonstrated
through a critical
analysis of relevant
considerations in a
consistently
nuanced and well
justified manner.
Outstanding ability
to identify legal
issues, provide
analysis and apply
the relevant case
law, legislation and
concepts.
Justifications
provide a
convincing and
specific application
of the principles to
the case study.
Conclusions are
logical, and highly
consistent with
reasoning and
evidence provided.
COMM1100 Case Study Analysis Marking Rubric
Failure to comply with the overall word limit will reduce your score (via Criterion 4) by one mark for exceeding the limit by more than 10% and by two
marks for exceeding it by more than 25%.
Criteria 3
Evaluation
and
application of
stakeholders
and
corporate
responsibility
concepts
(30%)
Fails to
identify
stakeholders
and corporate
responsibility
concepts.
Discussion is
largely
irrelevant
and/or fails to
incorporate
any evidence
or draw on
course
concepts.
A limited
understanding of
key stakeholders
and corporate
responsibility
concepts,
demonstrated
through the
identification of
course concepts
and some case
study references.

Evaluation of
decisions
demonstrate a
limited
understanding.
A proficient
understanding of
key stakeholders
and corporate
responsibility
concepts,
demonstrated
through an
explanation of
relevant
considerations
with accurate
justification.
Justifications
provide relevant
references to the
case study and
course concepts.

Evaluation of
decisions is
logical and
demonstrates a
sound
understanding.
A strong
understanding of
key stakeholders
and corporate
responsibility
concepts,
demonstrated
through an
evaluation of
relevant
considerations in
a convincing and
well justified
manner.
Justifications
provide relevant
and specific
references to the
case study and
course concepts.
Evaluation of
decisions is
logical, insightful
and demonstrates
a strong
understanding.
An advanced
understanding of
key stakeholders
and corporate
responsibility
concepts
,demonstrated
through an
evaluation of
relevant
considerations in
a nuanced,
convincing and
well justified
manner.
Justifications
provide highly
relevant and
specific
references to the
case study and
course concepts.
Evaluation of
decisions is
logical, insightful
and demonstrates
an in-depth
understanding.
An exceptional
understanding of
key stakeholders
and corporate
responsibility
concepts,
demonstrated
through a critical
evaluation of
relevant
considerations in a
consistently
nuanced,
convincing and well
justified manner.
Justifications
provide highly
relevant and
specific references
to the case study
and course
concepts.
Evaluation of
decisions is logical,
insightful and
demonstrates an in-
depth
understanding.
COMM1100 Case Study Analysis Marking Rubric
Failure to comply with the overall word limit will reduce your score (via Criterion 4) by one mark for exceeding the limit by more than 10% and by two
marks for exceeding it by more than 25%.
Criteria 4
Structure,
written
expression,
presentation,
referencing
(10%)
Writing is not in English or
is not legible or intelligible.
Spelling/grammar/syntax
errors and/or lack of
structure are so severe as
to seriously impair the
ability of the reader to
follow the analysis.
Written
expression
is unclear
and
incoherent.
Ideas and
argument
are difficult
to follow
and not
succinct.
No
evidence of
editing with
poor
presentation
of materials.
Structure is
poor and/or
very difficult
to follow.
Significant
problems
with
sequencing
and
transitioning
of ideas.
Significant
and
frequent
errors with
spelling
and/or
grammar.
Significant
errors in
referencing
that does
not comply
with faculty
guidelines
including
absent
sources
Written
expression
is generally
clear and
coherent.
Ideas and
argument
are not
consistently
easy to
follow.
Basic
evidence of
editing.
Structure is
adequate
with
some
problems in
sequencing
and
transitioning
of ideas.
Some
errors with
spelling
and/or
grammar.
Some
errors in
referencing
but
generally
complies
with faculty
guidelines
including
citing
accurately
some
sources.
Written
expression
is mostly
clear and
coherent.
Ideas, and
arguments
are mostly
easy to
follow.
Sound
evidence of
editing.
Structure is
logical,
coherent
with
appropriate
sequencing
and
transitioning
of ideas.
Few errors
with
spelling
and/or
grammar.
Few errors
in
referencing
but mostly
complies
with faculty
guidelines
including
citing
accurately
most
sources.
Written
expression
is
consistently
clear and
coherent.
Ideas,
information,
and
arguments
are easy to
follow.
Clear
evidence of
editing.
Structure is
logical,
coherent
with
appropriate
and clear
transitioning
of ideas. No
substantial
errors with
spelling
and/or
grammar.
No
substantial
errors in
referencing
and
complies
with faculty
guidelines
including
citing
accurately
all sources.
Written
expression is
consistently
clear and
coherent with
a high level of
sophistication.
Ideas,
information,
and
arguments are
easy to follow
and succinct.
Very clear
evidence of
thorough
editing.
Structure is
logical and
coherent with
appropriate
and clear
transitioning of
ideas.
Flawless
spelling and/or
grammar.
Flawless
referencing
and complies
with faculty
guidelines
including
citing
accurately all
sources.