# data[].attributes.headline
7/7 they had definitions and good examples

# data[].attributes.subject
7/7 they had definitions and good examples

# data[].attributes.body
The responses the student put correctly defined the term asked and also answered the question correctly. The graph at the end also seemed correctly labeled.

# data[].attributes.body
7/7

# data[].attributes.body
They organized their responses well and provided definitions.

# data[].attributes.body
They had good definitions and were able to explain their responses. They did a good job with clarifying what a correlation is as well.

# data[].attributes.body
6/7 they defined the terms and elaborated their responses well.

# data[].attributes.body
Both definitions and examples were good.

# data[].attributes.body
overall good but could do better

# data[].attributes.body
They justified and explained just fine.

# data[].attributes.body
7/7 they did pretty good with explaining it and had good definitions

# data[].attributes.body
3/7. Didn’t include definitions. Explanations were poor.

# data[].attributes.body
The definitions and examples became more and more vague.

# data[].attributes.body
It was pretty hard to read and understand the reasoning. The responses were short and they didn't have stable definitions. However, the graph was good.

# data[].attributes.body
The responses are adequate with the question, but it was still a bit confusing and more vague. I think some of the questions they did still earn a point though because they correctly answered it.

# data[].attributes.body
3/7. It was vague and they didn’t necessarily follow the directions for some of their responses.

# data[].attributes.body
The response didn't explain much in their responses or was just incorrect on most of the questions. I feel that they still got credit on some of the questions though because the response was correct even though it was vague.

# data[].attributes.body
The answers were very short and it looked that they only really defined the terms. The graph is also misunderstood.

# data[].attributes.body
they were super vague and short with their answers, most of them they only really defined and nothing else and their graph was wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
it was easy to read and they gave definitions but their responses weren't specific.

# data[].attributes.body
3/7 the defined words, but answers were not elaborated on. Some answers were incorrect.