Please let the tutuor know it is not due until 13th. Thank You!! Please make sure it is written in proper english. Thank You I am very happy with the grammar again. The English grammar is good throughout the paper. There were a lot of freesh things . There was very much new information. The word Tesla was used. The conclusion is perfect. It t make sense and flow. The paper was done to quickly and very well. I am very pleased in the quality of the work. Who ever wrote it is the same person I had to write the prior paper. All good everything is fine in the solution, you did a great job. I have fixed this site for my future reference. It is really very useful to get more score in university and expertsmind team is really supportive and helpful. thanks

I really need a very good analytical writer, who writes very well in english. The person who did my last paper did an outstanding job. I have to have someone follow the rubrics grading criteria and instruction sheet very precisely. It is 8-10 pages apa format and sources. I have attached instructions and a short example of a comparative analysis paper. Contry: JAPAN for entry in globel market, Company is: TESLA, and local competitotr: Toyota PRIUS and Globel: CHEVY BOLT.

Demonstrates some errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or word usage that somewhat interfere with reading or message. Demonstrates numerous errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or word usage. These errors distract from the reading and weaken the message. Demonstrates excessive errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and word usage. These errors display an inability to communicate the message. 0.0

Writing Mechanics [COMM] Uses wording, grammar, spelling and punctuation accurately and correctly. Weight 15% Contains virtuallynoerrors ingrammar, spelling and punctuation; any errors in writing mechanics and word usage do not interfere with reading or message.

Forms a conclusion in a mostly effective and sufficiently concise manner, demonstrating a well-reasoned, and justifiable perspective(s) that sufficiently considers potential consequences and implications for client’s business success Forms a conclusion in a partially effective manner demonstrating weakness in originality, reasoning, and justifiable perspective(s) that insufficiently considers potential consequences and implications for client’s business success. Forms a conclusion in an ineffective manner. Lacks an original, well-reasoned, or justifiable perspective(s) with little or no consideration of potential consequences and implications for the client’s business.

Conclusions [THIN] Competitive position. Formulates a position based upon consequences and implications for client’s business success. Weight 15% Forms a conclusion in a highlyeffective and concise manner, demonstrating an original, well-reasoned, and justifiable perspective(s) that extensively considers potential consequences and implications for client’s business success.

A mostly coherent and organized competitive strategy is recommended based on sufficient theoretical and logical support. Sufficient description of how strategy mitigates client competitive weaknesses and leverages client strengths. The relevance of each competitive advantage and disadvantage to the recommended competitive strategy is apparent. Apartially coherent and partially organized competitive strategy is recommended, but it is based on insufficient theoretical or logical support. Insufficient description of how strategy mitigates client competitive weaknesses and/or leverages client strengths. The relevance of competitive elements to the recommended strategy is not apparent.

Synthesis /Support [THIN] Quality of Recommendations Integrates key concepts from research and analyses in a coherent manner to form a cohesive, organized recommendation for competitive strategy. Weight 15% Clear and focused competitive strategy is recommended based on solid theoretical and logical support. Thorough description of how strategy mitigates client competitive weaknesses and leverages client strengths. The order of presentations and connections between and among key points is logical and clear. The relevance of each competitive advantage and disadvantage to the recommended competitive strategy is readily apparent.

Examines information in a mostly logical and accurate manner and sufficiently compares competitor and client strengths and weaknesses. Rationale for assessing competitive threat is mostly supported by credible evidence; sufficiently recognizes assumptions and distinguishes between fact, opinion, and value judgment; some logical fallacies exist but do not detract from the overall quality of analysis. Examines information in a somewhat logical and accurate manner but insufficiently compares competitor and client strengths and weaknesses. Rationale for competitive threat is weakly supported by evidence and/or evidence is not credible; assumptions are not recognized, and logical fallacies detract from the analysis.

Quality of Analysis [THIN] : Competitive threat Determines essential components and underlying assumptions of the data while considering connections among multiple factors and relative significance/weight of each. Weight 15% Examines information in a highly logical and accurate manner and thoroughly compares competitor and client strengths and weaknesses. Sound reasoning for competitive threat assessment is well supported by credible, accurate, and relevant evidence; recognizes assumptions and distinguishes between fact, opinion, and value judgment; logical fallacies are not used.

Displays mostly complete evidence that information sources adequately represent the appropriate competitors. At least one global and one local competitor is identified and relevance is mostly justified and clearly presented. The order of presentation and connections between competitor data and evaluation/assessment of competitor strengths and weaknesses are mostly logical and apparent. Displays incomplete evidence that information sources adequately represent the appropriate competitors. Global and local competitors are either missing or not clearly identified. Relevance of selection is not well justified or clearly presented. The order of presentation and connections between data and evaluation/assessment of competitor strengths and weaknesses are not logical or clear.

Selection/Retrieval [INFO] Quality of Research— Competitors Chooses appropriate resources identified through online searches and critically assesses the quality of the information based on relevance to the assignment requirements. Weight 15% Displays thorough evidence that information sources represent the appropriate competitors. At least one global and one local competitor is identified and relevance is well justified and very clearly presented. The order of presentation and connections between competitor data and evaluation/assessment of competitor strengths and weaknesses are logical and readily apparent.

MARGINAL 2.8-3.1 UNSATISFACTORY 0-2.7 Score Each Criterion (points x weight) Demonstrates marginal knowledge and application of relevant theories and concepts. Ambiguities and omissions detract from clarity of Executive Summary Fails to demonstrate understanding or appropriate application of relevant theories and concepts.Lack of clarity or depth in Executive Summary, or Summary fails to articulate purpose, methodologies, and/or conclusions of the analyses. 0.0

CRITERIA EXEMPLARY 3.6-4.0 COMPETENT 3.2.-3.5 Conceptualization/ Main Ideas [THIN] Executive Summary Identifies and articulates the main idea(s)/issues(s) in a way that is appropriate for the audience, research, context, and purpose of the assignment. Weight 15% Demonstrates exceptional knowledge and application of relevant theories and concepts. Executive Summary, presented with exceptional clarity,identifies the purpose, methodologies, analyses and conclusions in a clear, concise, and interesting way. Demonstrates sufficient knowledge and appropriate application oftheories and concepts with sufficient clarity to support a common understanding. Executive Summary is mostly clear in presenting the purpose, methodologies, analyses, and conclusions in a concise way.

Competency Definitions developed for the Graduate School: Critical Thinking (THIN) - Demonstrate the use of analytical skills and reflective processing of information. Information Literacy (INFO) - Demonstrate the ability to use libraries and other information resources to effectively locate, select, and evaluate needed information. Written Communication (COMM) - Produce writing that meets expectations for format, organization, content, purpose, and audience. Technology Fluency (TECH) - Demonstrate an understanding of information technology broad enough to apply technology productively to academic studies, work, and everyday life.

Rubric for Assessing competitor analysis and competencies for Critical Thinking, Information Literacy, Written Communication and Technology Fluency Introduction: The competencies in this rubric are trans-disciplinary articulate fundamental criteria for each Student Learning Expectation (SLE), with performance descriptors demonstrating progressively more sophisticated levels of attainment. The rubric is intended for program-level use in evaluating and discussing student learning, and for grading the competitor analysis assignment in DMBA630.

I need the paper to be followed precisely by the Rubrics grading attachment and this instruction paper. I need a very good analytical writer. Someone who is well versed in business management strategy.