REVIEW REVIEW OF THE SECOND PART TAKEN 09/05/1911
In all cases, reprobate concerning the tests, it assumes that students have not demonstrated the minimum level required by the chair, which allows for approaches and distinctions on the issues reasonably questioned as to interconnect them and demonstrate that they understand the background of the institutions under study. I received on Wednesday May 11 reviews collected on that date as the exam is Monday May 16, the review does not contain the detailed comments analysis of the evidence, because the time was insufficient.
I. - WJE 29859271.
- denotes no response level is confusing, refers to institutions not justify its application, evidence must deepen their understanding of the issues involved, all important. This does not mean that everything that is wrong, but he says it in a way that evidence not be at the level required to pass the subject.
- not explain the scheme contained in the second part of Art. 107 as required.
- quite deficiency explains the art. 19 LS but neither mentioned the difference with what is asked, it was unenforceable.
- The issue of ancillary services is related to low levels and incomplete.
- not the answer.
- not answer it properly, did not understand the purpose of the question.
- does not reflect properly the majority.
- reasonably describes the general scheme, but does not answer the question that is made in particular that is what is required to do.
- Acceptable.
- not explain what behaviors should be followed, he was asked what, but describes the essence of the system.
Conclusion: Do not reach the required level. Your exam demonstrates knowledge but lacks basic deepen.
ALP II .- 26346147 .-
1. The response demonstrates a limited knowledge of the topics asked. The mix, omit the unenforceability and the liability of directors, talks about the art. 31, CT law regards certain social security debts and labor. Evidence not be the level required to pass the subject.
2. not answer the question.
3. The differences between the art. 19 LS and the unenforceability described as low level.
4. not know properly the of incidental services. Poorly describes the system, for anything that says enough.
5. Ccontesta reasonably.
6. The answer basically not practically nothing and develops a critical analysis as requested.
7. What virtually nothing is said, does not refer to the institutes mentioned (extension and renewal) is as if he could not answer ..
8. describes the general scheme with some omissions and errors. For example, said that the assembly takes place in the directory. But in its formulation, does not answer the question that is made in particular that is what is required to do.
9. The answer wrong ..
10. not explain what behaviors should be followed, he was asked what, but describes the essence of the system.
11. Conclusion: Do not reach the required level. His review shows basic knowledge but lacks deepen.
III .- MMJ 33646717 .-
1. The level of knowledge demonstrated in the response is low. Omits to point out differences and specify enforcement cases showing learning more schools.
2. says to partially distribute the obligations must be met rather than guaranteed. In addition, describe the arrangements acceptable.
3. commits serious errors in describing the differences between art. 19 LS and the unenforceability which shows little knowledge of the subject. For example, said that the society unenforceability shall not be bound.
4. not know properly the ancillary services. Poorly describes the system with fundamental omissions.
5. Your response indicates that he was studying the issue, but is confused and wrong answer by describing how to act, to have no clear evidence.
6. The answer basically not practically nothing and develops a critical analysis as requested.
7. What it says is incomplete and insufficient.
8. basically describes the system with some omissions and errors. For example, does not say which body is responsible.
9. The answer reasonably.
10. reasonably.
11. Conclusion: There comes the required level. Is a student with a greater effort should reach the average level sought by the Chair.
ALP IV .- 19469 .-
1. response does not develop. Is insufficient.
2. acceptably describes the system.
3. responds incompletely.
4. respond reasonably in the basics. The development is poor.
5. is wrong and does not develop.
6. answer wrongly, did not understand the meaning d ela question and not a critical analysis as requested.
7. What it says is incomplete and insufficient. Ignores the rules of art. 70.
8. The answer showing a low level and omissions ..
9. basically describes the system with many omissions. No evidence level.
10. reasonably.
11. Conclusion: It is very clear that it reaches the required level. In addition, his handwriting is almost illegible ..
V. - 33219458 SSRN .-
1. develops a modest response.
2. wrong answer. .
3. poorly explains the differences between 19 and 54, third paragraph, makes several errors and omitted some things.
4. Evidence not know the art. 50. .
5. Skip say they must first use the path of art. 55 for information.
6. Responds poorly, failed to understand the meaning of the question and not a critical analysis as requested.
7. did not have adequate evidence of renewal and extension system, which says almost nothing and improperly.
8. reasonably The answer ..
9. Describe reasonably.
10. reasonably.
11. Conclusion: Not far from the required level. But it must go deeper.
0 comments:
Post a Comment