Future of Sea World in The Journal of Animal Ethics Solution

Future of Sea World in The Journal of Animal Ethics

Table of Contents

Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457	Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5%	Writer Classification: PhD competent
Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago	Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours	Revision: Permitted
Sources: 4-6	Course Level: Masters/University College	Guarantee Status: 96-99%

Instructions

Future of Sea World in The Journal of Animal Ethics

In your signal phrases, then, use the author’s last name (Javanaud) plus “et al.,” which means “and others.” Your sentence might look like this:

Javanaud et al. argue that Sea World is responsible for many other aquatic animals other than orcas and should take steps for their well-being also. (Note that “Javanaud et al.” takes a plural verb.)

You can vary this by noting the publication source, such as this:

Future of Sea World in The Journal of Animal Ethics

In an article in the Journal of Animal Ethics, the authors argue that Sea World must ensure the health of many types of aquatic animals.

You do not have to include a Works Cited page for your summary and response since you will only be using this one article that I provided.

In the first few lines of your assignment, you should provide a brief introduction to the topic of the article before you transition to a detailed summary.  After your summary, write a thorough response to the article that focuses on the authors’ thesis and supporting details. You can agree, disagree, or meet the authors somewhere in the middle, but you must explain your ideas about the article and the topic in full.

Future of Sea World in The Journal of Animal Ethics

Summary: Your summary should include all the elements of academic summaries outlined in the Week One materials (“How to Write a Summary” and “Writing Summaries”), including the author’s name and the article title, an objective rendering of the author’s thesis and main ideas, and signal phrases throughout to give the authors credit for their ideas.

Response: Your response can include an analysis of the authors, their purpose, the intended audience, the style and tone of the text, the organization and presentation of ideas, and the assumptions/values being presented. Also, you can reflect on the effectiveness of the thesis, the ideas with which you agree and/or disagree, and the article’s meanings or implications. Feel free to include your own observations or prior knowledge about the topic.

Future of Sea World in The Journal of Animal Ethics

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Future of Sea World in The Journal of Animal Ethics

Future of Sea World in The Journal of Animal Ethics

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!