# data[].attributes.body
Great introduction. Clear arguments and subsections. Clear conclusion. Great arguments, with clear sources and citations. Clear conclusion. 70+

# data[].attributes.body
Overall good but there isn't a conclusion

# data[].attributes.body
Found it very difficult to read, in terms of sentence structure. Had some good points and a solid argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Typos and unfinished sentences. Sentences unlinked, blunt and too short. Needs more of a discursive approach. English isn't very good. Doesn't seem to make a strong point. No clear link between first and second section. Lack of references. No clear arguments, doesn't actually answer the question. No further questioning. 58?

# data[].attributes.body
Poorly written
Incoherent with no real structure

# data[].attributes.body
set up the essay very well, lots of good definitions and setting out what the essay was going to be about

# data[].attributes.body
SOLID ARGUMENT, BUT SOME POINTS NOT EXPLAINED WELL ENOUGH AND SENTENCES LONG AND TOO COMPLEX

# data[].attributes.headline
Very clear introduction and lay out entire essay. Sentence structure and grammar was good too. Lots of sources that linked very well into the points.

# data[].attributes.subject
Very clear introduction and lay out entire essay. Sentence structure and grammar was good too. Lots of sources that linked very well into the points.

# data[].attributes.body
70+

# data[].attributes.body
occasionally some sentences were unclear or hard to read but the position was clearly stated and well argued

# data[].attributes.body
intro was good but it became less cohesive as it went on

# data[].attributes.body
Well written, well formatted, well cited, unfortunately they didn't have a conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
-lots of sources
-case study
-clear intro and conclusion
-multiple different perspectives shown throughout

# data[].attributes.body
Defines key terms

Grammatical errors
Includes too many non academic sources
Not enough critical analysis

# data[].attributes.body
The writer made it clear what he/she will argue in the essay

There were some grammatical errors
The structure of the essay could also be improved

# data[].attributes.body
-Clear introduction
-Use of a case study to create depth, detail and critical analysis
-Good summaries of each point
-Clear conclusion
-Multiple viewpoints addressed through the use of lots of academic sources

Issues:
- Possibly too many quotes and these could probably be analysed further

# data[].attributes.body
Grade: 69
Good breadth and depth, but relies way too much on direct quotations.
References in an appropriate manner with few mistakes.

# data[].attributes.body
Grade 3
There is no clear argument, therefore no structure as well
Poor referencing

# data[].attributes.body
-Defines CSR and other key terms
-Detailed examples

Issues:
- Poor grammar
-Sometimes referencing is missed
- Could be more critical

# data[].attributes.body
well written and good referencing
informative introduction
well structured
insightful and captivating titles
shows deep understanding of subject and incorporation of different sources
concise conclusion

# data[].attributes.body
Grade 2:2
Confused structure
The main argument does not flow
Some referencing mistskes

# data[].attributes.body
-Lacks a clear argument and therefore conclusion
-Lots of references but these are not analysed or explained very clearly.
-The flow could be improved

Positives:
-The end of the introduction clearly laid out what the essay would address

# data[].attributes.body
not referenced appropriately
mistakes in grammar and sloppy sentences
some paragraphs too short
lots of own ideas and reflection which shows deep understanding of subject (but presented partly in an unclear way)

# data[].attributes.body
+(goods)
Almost critical with all the peoples in the reference?

- (bads)
Not enough quantitative data to support the argument

# data[].attributes.body
+(goods)
Great variety of sources(including ones from his reading list i'm sure)

-(bads)
Does not acknowledge bias of data from orgs & govs.

# data[].attributes.body
writing a bit unclearly (some sentences too long and complicated)
good structure and good amount of referencing used
shows deep understanding of subject
could use with more self-formed criticism

# data[].attributes.body
Sure feedbacks:
+(goods)
Active voice sentences.

-(bads)
Missing topic sentences & concluding synthesizers.

Poor proofreading

Includes un-reliable sources
(non-peer reviewed/academic)

My ambiguous opinions:
+(goods)
Defined key terms in the question

-(bads)
Unecessary headings

# data[].attributes.body
Detailed examples throughout
Well written/coherent
Breadth of sources
Quality references
Includes and disputes counterarguments
Has a clear personal engagement
Comprehensive structure

# data[].attributes.body
No critical analysis of readings
Poorly written and often incoherent
Incorrect referencing
Doesn't Evaluate sources

# data[].attributes.body
lacked criticism of readings
Good number of examples and case studies in most paragraphs
Their own approach to the subject was limited