Assignment in 3000 Words:
‘The principle that banks deal in documents, not goods, is vital to the operation of documentary credits, but causes immense problems for exporters.’
By close reference to decided authority, critically analyse the accuracy of the statement above.
Good answers should go on to suggest how UCP 700 might phrase the above matter given the challenges that have been identified to date.
Maximum word limit = 3000 words
| Mark Range | Knowledge & Understanding (Weighting 30%) | Criticality (Weighting 30%) | Reading and Research (Weighting 30%) | Writing Style (Weighting 10%) |
| 90-100%+ | Complete subject knowledge and understanding, critically evaluating all theoretical perspectives to create a new and original perspective. | Complete and insightful theoretical interpretation and evaluation, synthesising original ideas. | All necessary subject material cited flawlessly, with complete, critical use of material from other disciplines. | Flawless and precise writing style. |
| 80-89% | Excellent and wide-ranging subject knowledge and understanding, critically evaluating most theoretical perspectives, to create an alternative perspective. | Excellent and comprehensive theoretical interpretation and evaluation, trying to synthesise original ideas. | Most necessary subject material cited extremely effectively, with significant, critical use of material from other disciplines. | Lively and articulate writing style with very strong control of arguments and no language errors. |
| 70–79% | Excellent subject knowledge and understanding, critically evaluating many theoretical perspectives, to create a combined perspective. | Excellent and consistent theoretical interpretation and evaluation, synthesising some insightful conclusions. | Excellent independent research, citing a very wide range of relevant subject material very effectively, with some critical use of material from other disciplines. | Excellent writing style with strong control of arguments and very few language errors. |
| 60–69% | Very good subject knowledge and understanding, critically discussing commonly accepted theoretical perspectives. | Very good theoretical interpretation and evaluation of evidence, mainly consistent throughout. | Very good independent research, citing a wide range of relevant subject material effectively. | Very good writing style with few language errors. |
| 50–59% | Sound subject knowledge and understanding, with some attempt to be critical of theoretical perspectives. | Some theoretical interpretation and evaluation but criteria not always clearly stated. | Some independent research, citing an appropriate range of relevant subject material to reasonable effect. | Sound writing style with some language errors. |
| 40–49% | Basic subject knowledge and understanding, with little attempt to be critical of theoretical perspectives. | Basic theoretical interpretation and evaluation but with occasional errors. | Basic independent research, citing a limited range of subject material to some effect. | Broadly coherent writing style with language errors. |
| 30–39% | Limited relevant knowledge and understanding, with key omissions and mechanical reproduction of introductory material. | Limited attempt at theoretical interpretation, but with key errors and no evaluation. | Citing a single textbook source and/or citing lecture notes, and/or use of unreliable or inappropriate material. | Limited structure and coherence and some arguments are unclear. Bullet points instead of prose. Incorrect use of OSCOLA referencing Convention. Wrong assignment format. |
| 20–29% | Very limited subject knowledge and understanding with many errors and omissions. | Very limited argument, no evaluation and barely addressing the task. | Personal opinion with some reading apparent, but not cited. | Little structure and coherence and many arguments are unclear due to very poor English. |
| 10–19% | Seriously flawed subject knowledge and understanding. | Seriously flawed argument with no use of theoretical material and not addressing the task. | Unclear whether reading has taken place and no reading cited. | Much of the assignment cannot be understood due to seriously flawed English. |
| 1-9% | No subject knowledge and understanding at all. | No attempt to address the task. | No reading apparent nor cited. | Entirely illegible. |
| 1% | Blank/corrupt/or incorrect file submitted | |||
| 0% | Assessment not submitted. Name only (examinations). | |||
Marker feedback/feedforward comments | ||||
Get expert help for Banking Principle for Exporters and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
