Weapons of Mass Persuasion – Description
As senior CGOs and FGOs, you will find yourself serving as a filter for strategic level issues and translating those issues into terms that your unit or team can understand. Consider a strategic level issue that directly impacts your unit (such as Russia vs. Ukraine, Diversity and Inclusion, Suicide Awareness, etc.). Describe how you would integrate conceptual frameworks of power, status, and influence with the application of negotiation or strategic communication processes to address the issue with your unit or team to support the mission. Provide specific, tangible, real-world examples and support these examples through critical analysis of prerequisite course materials and peer discussions from this course.
w
CriteriaRatingsPts
Analysis
view longer description
100 to >96 pts
Outstanding
Fully answered all aspects of the assignment. Demonstrated robust critical thinking through a comprehensive analysis that integrated relevant perspectives into an original, clear thesis fully supported with consistent logic.
96 to >90 pts
Excellent
Answered all aspects of the assignment. Demonstrated critical thinking through a comprehensive analysis that integrated relevant perspectives into a clear thesis supported with consistent logic.
90 to >75 pts
Satisfactory
Answered the assignment. Demonstrated critical thinking with sufficient analysis and adequately stated thesis with adequate support.
75 to >1 pts
Unsatisfactory
Failed to adequately address aspects of the assignment. Analysis did not demonstrate critical thinking, was unclear and not adequately supported.
1 to >0 pts
Not Acceptable
Inappropriate and/or unprofessional response. Did not complete assignment. Non-original work.
/ 100 pts
Course Concepts & Support
view longer description
100 to >96 pts
Outstanding
Demonstrated exceptional and in-depth mastery of course concepts. Superb use of evidence, primarily through course material/concepts and augmented with relevant personal experiences/external sources to support positions.
96 to >90 pts
Excellent
Demonstrated mastery of course concepts. Strong use of evidence, primarily through course material/concepts and augmented with relevant personal experiences/external sources to support positions.
90 to >75 pts
Satisfactory
Demonstrated understanding of course concepts. Adequate use of evidence, primarily through course material, to support positions.
75 to >1 pts
Unsatisfactory
Did not demonstrate understanding of course concepts. Inadequate use of course material to support positions.
1 to >0 pts
Not Acceptable
Inappropriate and/or unprofessional response. Did not complete assignment. Non-original work.
/ 100 pts
Writing Style
view longer description
50 to >48 pts
Outstanding
Writing was exceptionally clear, understandable and concise. Overall paragraph and/or sentence organization were exceptional. Writing follows all appropriate style/format guidance (e.g. Tongue and Quill, AU Style Guide, Chicago Manual of Style). Writing is free of digressions and/or irrelevant information.
48 to >45 pts
Excellent
Writing was clear, understandable and concise. Overall paragraph and/or sentence organization were very good. Writing contains minor deviations from appropriate style/format guidance (e.g. Tongue and Quill, AU Style Guide, Chicago Manual of Style). Digressions and/or irrelevant information does not significantly detract from the argument.
45 to >38 pts
Satisfactory
Writing was generally clear, understandable and concise. Overall paragraph and/or sentence organization were generally effective. Writing contains multiple deviations from appropriate style/format guidance (e.g. Tongue and Quill, AU Style Guide, Chicago Manual of Style). Digressions and/or irrelevant information detract reader from the argument.
38 to >1 pts
Unsatisfactory
Writing was repeatedly unclear, difficult to understand and/or wordy. Overall paragraph and/or sentence organization were ineffective or nonexistent. Writing contains significant and/or substantial deviations from appropriate style/format guidance (e.g. Tongue and Quill, AU Style Guide, Chicago Manual of Style). Digressions and/or irrelevant information consistently detract from the argument.
1 to >0 pts
Not Acceptable
Inappropriate and/or unprofessional response. Did not complete assignment. Non-original work.
/ 50 pts
Writing Mechanics
view longer description
50 to >48 pts
Outstanding
Grammar and spelling were flawless.
48 to >45 pts
Excellent
No more than a few minor grammar and/or spelling errors.
45 to >38 pts
Satisfactory
Grammar or spelling errors noted that did not detract from readability.
38 to >1 pts
Unsatisfactory
Repeated grammar or spelling errors detracted from readability.
1 to >0 pts
Not Acceptable
Inappropriate and/or unprofessional response. Did not complete assignment. Non-original work.
/ 50 pts
Administrative
view longer description
25 to >24 pts
Outstanding
Complied with all assignment parameters – time limits, word limits, citations, etc. Submitted assignment IAW instructions.
24 to >23 pts
Excellent
Minor deviation(s) from assignment parameters – time limits, word limits, citations, etc. Submitted assignment IAW instructions.
23 to >18 pts
Satisfactory
Multiple deviation(s) from assignment parameters -time limits, word limits, citations, etc. Submitted assignment IAW instructions.
18 to >1 pts
Unsatisfactory
Significant deviation(s) from assignment parameters – time limits, word limits, citations, etc. Did not submit assignment IAW instructions.
1 to >0 pts
Not Acceptable
Inappropriate and/or unprofessional response. Did not complete assignment. Non-original work.
The post Weapons of Mass Persuasion first appeared on .
