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.