Analysis And Personal Inventory
Based on the required topic study materials, write a reflection about worldview and respond to following:
In 250-300 words, explain the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism within health care.
In 250-300 words, explain what scientism is and describe two of the main arguments against it.
In 750-1,000 words, answer each of the worldview questions according to your own personal perspective and worldview: (a) What is ultimate reality? (b) What is the nature of the universe? (c) What is a human being? (d) What is knowledge? (e) What is your basis of ethics? (f) What is the purpose of your existence?
Remember to support your reflection with the topic study materials.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
| 1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% | 2 Less than Satisfactory 65.00% | 3 Satisfactory 75.00% | 4 Good 85.00% | 5 Excellent 100.00% | ||
| 70.0 %Content | ||||||
| 20.0 %Christian Perspective of Spirituality and Ethics in Contrast to Postmodern Relativism | Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism is incomplete or insufficient. | Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism is unclear. Explanation is not supported by topic study materials. | Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism is clear. Explanation is not supported by topic study materials. | Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism is clear and detailed. Explanation is supported by topic study materials. | Explanation of the Christian perspective of the nature of spirituality and ethics in contrast to the perspective of postmodern relativism is clear, detailed, and demonstrates a deep understanding of the subject. Explanation is supported by topic study materials. | |
| 20.0 %Scientism and Arguments | Explanation of scientism or the explanations of two main arguments against scientism are inaccurate. Details are not supported. | Description of scientism is accurate. Explanations of two main arguments against scientism are unclear. Details are not clearly supported by topic study materials. | Explanation of scientism is clear. Explanations of two main arguments against scientism are clear. Details are supported by topic study materials. | Explanation of scientism is clear and accurate. Explanations of two main arguments against scientism are clear. Details are clearly supported by topic study materials. | Explanation of scientism is clear and accurate. Explanations of two main arguments against scientism are clear and insightful. Details are clearly supported by topic study materials. | |
| 30.0 %Personal Perspective and Worldview | Worldview questions are not fully answered. | Each of the worldview questions is answered but is lacking a personal connection or clarity. | Each of the worldview questions is answered with personal connection. | Each of the worldview questions is answered clearly and with personal connection. | Each of the worldview questions is answered clearly and with deep personal insight. | |
| 30.0 %Organization, Effectiveness, and Format | ||||||
| 7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. | |
| 30.0 %Organization, Effectiveness, and Format | ||||||
| 8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction | Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. | Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. | Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. | |
| 30.0 %Organization, Effectiveness, and Format | ||||||
| 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. | |
| 30.0 %Organization, Effectiveness, and Format | ||||||
| 5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. | |
| 30.0 %Organization, Effectiveness, and Format | ||||||
| 5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. | |
| 100 %Total Weightage |
Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
NRSCODE
Use the following coupon code :
NRSCODE
