BEES2741 Assessment 1B (20% of course marks)
Discussion on the Origin of Life
Due: Friday 24 June 23.59

Assessment subject:
Life on Earth may have originated in hot springs deep in the oceans or in hot springs on the land.
Discuss the merits of both ocean-based and land-based hot springs as a potential site for the origin
of life.

Assessment requirements:
1. Word count: 1,200 words plus or minus 120 words excluding captions and references.
2. Images: Illustrations with captions and credits permitted.
3. Plain English: Succinct plain English is recommended but you may use terms like digitates,
biofilms, conical tufts, hydrothermal vents (and these are explained anyway in the module).
4. Readability: Avoid overly long paragraphs, mix sentence length for readability, undertake a
spelling and grammar check (Grammarly is recommended, and a free version is available).
5. Referencing: Reference list and in-text references required in APA style: Visit this link for
APA style.

To achieve a good mark, you are strongly recommended to tackle writing the assessment in these
steps:



In addition, here is a reminder of UNSW submission rules (available in the course outline):
6. UNSW plagiarism rules: Submit assessment at least two hours before the due time to check
your plagiarism score. You need to allow time for Turnitin to check and for you to fix.
Plagiarism is not acceptable, and you risk a zero mark. Visit this link to make sure you
understand how to avoid using the work of others without proper credit. If you are still not
sure, then please ask me.
7. UNSW submission rules: Late submissions attract a penalty of 5% per day for the first five
days. On the sixth day, the mark is zero. Apply for special consideration if you are
experiencing difficulties, including COVID-related issues. If you submit your assessment, then
you will not be able to replace or redo it later under the ‘fit to submit’ rule. If you are not
sure if your circumstance would qualify under special consideration, please ask me.

Marking rubric:

HD DN CR PS FL
1. Content
(maximum
12 marks)
Displays
outstanding
critical and
analytical
thinking in
discussing the
merits of ocean-
based and land-
based hot
springs (on the
latter, modern
and ancient) as
potential sites
for the origin of
life.



Displays
excellent
critical and
analytical
thinking in
discussing the
merits of
ocean-based
and land-
based hot
springs (on the
latter, modern
and ancient) as
potential sites
for the origin
of life.



Displays some
critical and
analytical
thinking but
more
descriptive than
analytical in
terms of
discussing the
merits of ocean-
based and land
based hot
springs (on the
latter, modern
and ancient) as
potential sites
for the origin of
life.



Mostly
descriptive with
little critical and
analytical
thinking evident
in terms of
discussing the
merits of ocean-
based and land-
based hot
springs (on the
latter, modern
and ancient) as
potential sites
for the origin of
life.



Student has not
understood the
assessment. The
assessment
describes
ocean-based
and land-based
hot spring
systems, with or
without
reference to the
potential of the
hot spring
environment to
be home to the
origin of life.
2. 2. References
(maximum 3
marks)

The discussion
is referenced
and there are
in-text
references
and a
reference list
at the end of
the report,
both in APA
style and
consistent





The discussion
is mostly well-
referenced
and there are
in-text
references
and a
reference list
at the end of
the report,
both mostly in
APA style and
consistent.





The discussion
is largely
referenced
and there are
in-text
references
and a
reference list
at the end of
the report,
both mostly in
APA style and
consistent.





The discussion
is somewhat
referenced.
There is
inconsistency
in the APA
referencing
style either in-
text or in the
reference list
but meets
minimum
standards in
terms of an
attempt at
referencing.




The student has
not referenced
the statements
made in their
report.
3. Readability
(maximum
5 marks)

The ideas flow,
paragraphing is
appropriate,
and a mix of
sentence
lengths makes
for readability.
A grammar and
spelling check
has been done.





The ideas
mostly flow,
paragraphing is
mostly
appropriate,
and a mix of
sentence
lengths makes
for readability.
A grammar and
spelling check
has been done.





The ideas
somewhat flow,
paragraphing is
somewhat
appropriate,
but the mix of
sentence
lengths needs a
little work to
make for
readability. A
few grammar
or spelling
errors.





Evidence of an
effort to make
ideas flow.
Work needed
on
paragraphing
and sentence
lengths for
readability but
meets
minimum
acceptable
standards
despite some
difficulty in the
readability of
the discussion.
Some grammar
or spelling
errors.




The discussion is
hard to read,
with little
evidence of flow
of ideas,
minimum
standard
paragraphing, or
a mix of
sentence length.
Some sentences
are not
complete
sentences.
Grammar
and/or spelling
is poor.