Your instructor will assign and send you a peer`s paper on Health Care Provider and Faith Diversity. Your job is to critically read the assignment and make corrections/comments using track changes and comments in Microsoft Word. Be sure to assess the paper using the following criteria: 1. Does the paper provide sufficient evidence for its hypothesis or claim? 2. Does the flow of the paper and sentence structure make sense? 3. Should it be organized in a different manner? 4. Are all the items listed in the assignment guidelines and rubric covered and in sufficient depth? This assignment uses a grading rubric. Instructors will be using the rubric to grade the assignment; therefore, students should review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations for successful completion of the assignment. Rubric Attached Below Health Care Provider and Faith Diversity: Peer Review 1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 2 Less than Satisfactory 65.00% 3 Satisfactory 75.00% 4 Good 85.00% 5 Excellent 100.00% 100.0 %Health Care Provider and Faith Diversity: Peer Review Rubric 40.0 %Comprehension of concepts of peer reviewing Student peer reviewer reveals inaccurate comprehension of material and does not provide any content feedback to the student writer. Student peer reviewer displays a lack of comprehension but attempts to provide some content feedback. The comments do not substantively add to the work. Student peer reviewer exhibits comprehension of the material by presenting appropriate content revisions necessary to improve student performance. Student peer reviewer exhibits thorough and thoughtful processing of material and provides additional information for consideration that demonstrates enhanced creativity and critical thinking skills. Student peer reviewer demonstrates integrative comprehension and thoughtful application and deepens or expands the writer?s claim by presenting additional perspectives and content ideas. 30.0 %Coverage of subject matter. Subject matter is absent, inappropriate, and/or irrelevant. There is weak, marginal coverage of subject matter with large gaps in presentation. All subject matter is covered in minimal quantity and quality. Comprehensive coverage of subject matter is evident. Coverage extends beyond what is needed to support subject matter. 7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing thesis and/or main claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis and/or main claim makes the purpose of the paper clear. 8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the thesis and/or main claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of thesis and/or main claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of thesis and/or main claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of thesis and/or main claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive thesis and/or main claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of the meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register); sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. 5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct. 5.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) No reference page is included. No citations are used. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. 100 %Total Weightage Peer Review Will be attached to writer