# data[].attributes.body
Rarely or never uses appropriate scientific vocabulary. Shows little to no understanding of relevant terminology. Uses incorrect terms or everyday language exclusively.

# data[].attributes.body
Limited use of scientific vocabulary with multiple errors in usage. Shows minimal understanding of terminology. Relies heavily on general language instead of scientific terms.

# data[].attributes.body
Uses some scientific vocabulary with occasional errors. Understanding of terms is present but inconsistent. May substitute general language for scientific terms in some instances.

# data[].attributes.body
Uses most scientific vocabulary terms correctly with minor errors in usage or context. Shows good understanding of terminology but may have 1-2 instances of imprecise usage.

# data[].attributes.body
Consistently and accurately uses relevant scientific vocabulary (e.g., bacteria, antibiotics, resistance, mutation, selection pressure, evolution) throughout all responses. Terms are used in proper context with clear understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Shows minimal understanding of antibiotic resistance. Major misconceptions present. Unable to explain basic concepts or make connections.

# data[].attributes.body
Shows partial understanding with significant gaps. Explanation of resistance development is incomplete or contains misconceptions. Few connections made between concepts.

# data[].attributes.body
Demonstrates basic understanding of antibiotic resistance. Some key concepts are explained correctly while others may be unclear or incomplete. Connections between concepts are limited.

# data[].attributes.body
Shows strong understanding of antibiotic resistance with minor gaps. Explains most aspects of resistance development and natural selection correctly. Makes some connections between concepts.

# data[].attributes.body
Demonstrates comprehensive understanding of antibiotic resistance. Clearly explains the mechanism of resistance development, natural selection process, and implications for human health. Makes clear connections between concepts.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides no relevant examples or evidence. Answers are unsupported or consist of personal opinions only. No real-world applications mentioned.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides minimal examples or evidence. Support is often vague or irrelevant. Few real-world applications mentioned. Explanations lack detail and specificity.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides some examples and evidence, but support may be general or vague in places. Limited real-world applications. Some explanations lack sufficient detail.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides good examples and evidence to support most answers. Some real-world applications mentioned. Explanations are mostly well-supported with accurate details.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides specific, relevant examples and evidence to support all answers. Cites real-world applications and scenarios. Explanations are thorough and well-supported with accurate details.

# data[].attributes.body
Responses are unclear and disorganized throughout. Ideas are very difficult to follow. Numerous spelling or grammar errors that severely impact understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Responses are often unclear or poorly organized. Ideas are difficult to follow. Multiple spelling or grammar errors that impact understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Responses are somewhat clear but organization may be inconsistent. Some ideas may be unclear or disconnected. Several spelling or grammar errors present but main ideas are understandable.

# data[].attributes.body
Responses are mostly clear and well-organized. Ideas generally flow logically with minor lapses. Few spelling or grammar errors that don't impact understanding significantly.

# data[].attributes.body
Responses are clearly written, well-organized, and easy to follow. Ideas flow logically. No spelling or grammar errors that impact understanding. Complete sentences used throughout.