Assessment One – Critical ReflectionAssessment typeCritical reflection Word limit/length 500 wordsWeighting10% Due date 11 pm Tuesday 10th NovemberOverview“To improve the mental health of the nation...

Assessment One – Critical ReflectionAssessment typeCritical reflection Word limit/length 500 wordsWeighting10% Due date 11 pm Tuesday 10th NovemberOverview“To improve the mental health of the nation we need better organisation not more expenditure”This assessment task provides you with an opportunity to reflect upon the way in which mental health services are governed and funded in Australia. The assessment item has been designed to encourage you to develop a well-supported argument in response to the proposition. If unsure how best to construct such an argument you might like to refer to the Southern Cross University guide on critical judgement. You may also benefit from first sketching out your argument in an Argument Map, details for which can be found at the ReasonLab website: https://www.reasoninglab.com/argument-mapping/Learning outcomesThis assessment task is aligned with the following learning outcomes: Identify and critique the policy and funding context of mental health service provision in primary mental health care and non-government organisation sectorsAssessment detailsIn 500 words provide a well reasoned argument FOR or AGAINST the proposition “to improve the mental health of the nation we need better organisation, not more expenditure”. In your answer you should cite evidence from relevant literature, either from resources we have provided in the unit content or from literature you have independently accessed. In your response to this assessment exercise we ask you to clearly state your position on the proposition. NB, Reference list expected but will not be included in word count.NRS83003 Mental Health in Community, Non-Government and Primary Health SettingsPage 6 of 16Submission formatPlease upload your assessment response as a Word document via Turnitin in Blackboard. Following submission please share on the blackboard discussion site.NRS83003 Mental Health in Community, Non-Government and Primary Health SettingsPage 7 of 16Assessment One RubricCriterionMarksHD+HDDCHigh passLow passHigh failLow fail Clear identification of position regarding the proposition. 10 Exceptionally well written. Choice of stance is very clearly established and justified. Available evidence exceptionally relevant. Very well written. Choice of stance is clearly established and justified. Available evidence extremely relevant. Choice of stance is clearly established and justified. Available evidence highly relevant. Choice of stance is somewhat justified. Evidence presented is relevant. Choice of stance is basically justified. Available evidence somewhat relevant Choice of stance is barely justified. Only a poor attempt to provide relevant evidence Choice of stance is not justified. No evidence, or available evidence poorly linked. No attempt to identify a position Critical reasoning leading to well supported position regarding the proposition 70 Argument is exceptionally well developed with more than one reasons and objections supported by appropriate evidence. Very succinct summation of the argument Argument is well developed with more than one reasons and objections supported by appropriate evidence. Very succinct summation of the argument Argument is developed with some reasons and objections supported by evidence. Summation of argument of evident Argument is somewhat well developed. May only include one substantive reason in support or objection. Evidence cited is somewhat relevant Argument in support of the position may only include evidence for. No objections provided. Argument in support of the position may only include evidence for. No objections provided. Response poorly supported by evidence No attempt to clearly construct an argument supported by evidence. No attempt to construct an argument Writing Spelling & Grammar Referencing 20 Exceptionally clear, crisp and coherent style. Exceptionally well organised. Completely free of grammar and spelling errors. All citations follow required style. Clear, crisp and coherent style. Very well organised. Free of grammar and spelling errors. All citations follow required style. Clear, coherent style. Well organised. Mostly free of grammatical and spelling errors. Citations follow required style. Small errors. Good style. Competently written. Structure is clear. A few grammatical errors. Most citations follow required style. Some errors. Writing is adequate. Structure could be clearer. Grammatical errors. Some citations follow required style. Errors. Writing is adequate. Structure could be significantly clearer. Numerous grammatical errors. Some citations follow required style. Errors. Poor style with little attention to spelling and punctuation. Poorly structured. Not written well. Citations do not follow required style. Very poor style with no attention to spelling and punctuation. Very poorly structured. Not written well. Citations not provided.