Case study is provided below in a word documentText citation in APA: Max, W., & Silvia, P. (2014). Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences. Elsevier S & T. https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9780127999357

SCI 350 Module Six Short Paper Guidelines and Rubric

Overview

Think about some examples given in Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences of the balance provided by exploitation of local resources and the resulting impact on indigenous societies. Select a sample case study from the text reading and write a short paper that addresses the following:

• Discuss the pros and cons of the project.
• Describe the ethics that influenced (or were ignored in) the decisions to move forward with the project.
• Do you agree with the decisions?

Specifically the following critical elements must be addressed:

• Pros and Cons: Discuss the pros and cons of the case study.
• Ethics: Describe the ethics that influenced (or were ignored in) the decisions to move forward with the project.
• Agreement: Explain why you agree or disagree with the decisions to move forward.

What to Submit

This short paper must be 2 pages in length (plus a cover page and references) and must be written in APA format. Use double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins. All references must be cited in APA format.

Module Six Short Paper Rubric

CriteriaExemplary (100%)Proficient (85%)Needs Improvement (55%)Not Evident (0%)ValuePros and ConsMeets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates keen insight into the pros and cons of the case studyDiscusses the pros and cons of the case studyDiscusses the pros and cons of the case study, but lacks sufficient detailDoes not discuss the pros and cons of the case study30EthicsMeets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates keen insight into the ethics that influenced (or were ignored in) the decisions to move forward with the projectDescribes the ethics that influenced (or were ignored in) the decisions to move forward with the projectDescribes the ethics that influenced (or were ignored in) the decisions to move forward with the project, but lacks sufficient detailDoes not describe the ethics that influenced (or were ignored in) the decisions to move forward with the project30AgreementMeets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates keen insight into agreement or disagreement with the decisions to move forwardExplains agreement or disagreement with the decisions to move forwardExplains agreement or disagreement with the decisions to move forward, but lacks applicable referencesDoes not explain agreement or disagreement with the decisions to move forward30Articulation of ResponseSubmission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read formatSubmission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organizationSubmission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideasSubmission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas10Total:100%