World Seismicity Fault Rupture Discussion

World Seismicity Fault Rupture Discussion

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

World Seismicity Fault Rupture Discussion

Learning Goal: I’m working on a science case study and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.

 

For this assignment

STEP 1: PRINT OUT THE ATTACHED MAP OF WORLD SEISMICITY  DOWNLOAD WORLD SEISMICITY .

• • If you cannot print a physical copy you can make your annotations in this Google Earth Slide (Links to an external site.) – here is a brief 5-minute tutorial video (Links to an external site.) that shows you how.

Each dot on this map represents a place where earthquakes commonly occur. The color of the dot represents at what depth in Earth’s crust the rupture begins: shallow (0 to 70 km), intermediate (70 to 300 km) or deep (300 to 700 km).

STEP 2: ANNOTATE THIS MAP

Based on what you now know about the three types of plate boundaries make notes on your map.

Your annotations MUST include at least four of the following types of notes:

• • • a line or set of lines that connect the dots
    • a label indicating the type of plate boundary that coincides with a particular group of earthquakes
    • a label indicating the type(s) of features that you would expect to find near a particular group of earthquakes
    • additional symbols plotted on the map (and in the map key) to indicate the presence of mountains, volcanoes, etc…
    • arrows to show the relative direction of plate movement
    • observations that relate to your own personal experience with an area shown on this map
    • questions or comments

For full credit, you will want to include at least 10 annotations on your map, from at least four of the categories bulleted above.

STEP 3: SCAN OR PHOTOGRAPH YOUR ANNOTATED MAP AND ATTACH WITH YOUR ON-LINE SUBMISSION.

Submissions will be graded based on the depth and quality of connection to the Learning Objectives for this module.

For example, a map that uses lines and symbols with labels or a key with questions, comments or observations that make connections will earn more points than a map that merely uses lines to connect the dots.

IN ADDITION TO THE FIGURES & MAPS FROM THIS WEEK’S ASSIGNED READINGS AND VIDEOS, HERE IS A MAP THAT CAN HELP YOU WITH YOUR ANNOTATIONS

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 World Seismicity Fault Rupture Discussion

World Seismicity Fault Rupture Discussion

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