100%

2 excellently formed questions. The questions require other students to conjecture, investigate, formulate new ideas. (The highest level in Bloom’s Taxonomy). Both questions are based on the big ideas and requirements of the assignment. Student demonstrates in-depth engagement with and knowledge of the primary sources assigned this week.//No evidence that this was ai generated. If ai was used, student included the original comment from ai chat bot, cited it, and revised it, following all five requirements for making writing sound more human.

90%

2 questions that are directly about the primary source assigned and show that you engaged with the source. They are at the level of critiquing or evaluating (the second level in Bloom’s Taxonomy). one question is at the level of big ideas, and is conceptual, but other question is more focused on details rather than big picture. May not show full engagement with the primary sources assigned this week.//There are minor indications that some content in the assignment might be AI-generated. Student followed only 4 out 5 requirements for making writing sound more human; this indicates that the student may have used AI to generate their responses.

80%

1-2 questions that may not be entirely related to the source or may not demonstrate that you actually read/watched the primary source in depth. At the level of compare/contrast, or the examining (level three in Bloom’s Taxonomy). Question(s) may be too focused on small details. May not be original or new. May be too similar to past student work or to other students’ work in this class. //Student followed only 3 out of 5 requirements for making writing sound human. Still no AI-detection software detects a likelihood of ai-generated content

70%

1 question that may not demonstrate your engagement with the source. Falls at level four in Bloom’s Taxonomy which is application, demonstration, interpretation. Question is not original or new. May be too similar to past student work or to other students’ questions. //The assignment contains noticeable evidence of AI-generated content. student followed only 2 out of the 5 criteria for making writing sound human; this indicates that the student used AI to generate their responses. At least 1 AI-detection software indicates that there is some likelihood that this is AI-generated.

50%

there is 1 question is unrelated or does not show engagement with the source. At the level of explanation, description, identification, recognition. This is level five in Bloom’s Taxonomy. Question is not original. //The assignment has substantial indications of AI-generated content. Student followed 0-1 of the criteria for making writing sound human. This indicates that the student used AI to create their assignment responses. At least two AI-detection software indicate that there is a moderate-high probability that the assignment was AI-generated.

did not complete

either did not complete this portion OR The assignment provides highly convincing evidence that a significant portion of its content is generated by AI, with minimal human input. There is no mention of (1) course materials, (5) no citations, and if there are quotes they are all longer than three lines. (2) It lacks natural language, includes vague or generic phrases, and (5) doesn’t properly cite quotes or facts, indicating probable AI-generated content. (4) There’s no clear presence of the student’s personal experiences. (3) The student’s voice, tone, or style is not discernible. At least three AI-detection software indicate that there is a high probability that the assignment was AI-generated. The assignment will be given a grade of 0 and the student will need to revise it.

100%

all 6 aspects of the “intro” scene are included in a unique, creative, and innovative manner. These include: location, topic, arguments, moderator, summary, citations. // Student follows assignment instructions, uses correct course materials based on these instructions, writing considers its audience correctly, has a clear purpose and point that is summarized in a sentence. Citations including in-text or footnotes are used for every statement made, not just in a works cited page.///No evidence that this was ai generated. If ai was used, student included the original comment from ai chat bot, cited it, and revised it, following all five requirements for making writing sound more human.

90%

4-5 of the required points are included regarding the intro scene. The student’s work is original and innovative, but could be more so. // In Scene 1 the student did 4-5 of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In Scene 1, student did all 3 of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. Citations including in-text or footnotes are used for MOST but not ALL statements made, not just in a works cited page. ///There are minor indications that some content in the assignment might be AI-generated. Student followed only 4 out 5 requirements for making writing sound more human; this indicates that the student may have used AI to generate their responses.

80%

3 of the requirements re: intro to cast of characters and debate topic were included: location, topic, arguments, moderator, summary and citations. The student’s work is not very original or innovative and it seems to similar to past student work / current student work. In Scene 1 the student did 2-3 of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In Scene 1, student did 1-2 of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. // In Scene 1, student did 4-5 of the following: using diff. structures for sentences, starting sentences differently, using variety of vocabulary, carefully selecting synonyms, using correct mechanics including grammar, spelling and punctuation. // Citations including in-text or footnotes are used for a FEW but not ALL statements made, not just in a works cited page. //Student followed only 3 out of 5 requirements for making writing sound human. Still no AI-detection software detects a likelihood of ai-generated content.

70%

1-2 of the required points were included re: intro. These include: location, topic, arguments, moderator, summary and citations. The submission is surface level and needs more depth. This scene is not new, original or innovative. // In Scene 1 the student did only 1 of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In Scene 1, student did only 1 of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. // In Scene 1, student did 2-3 of the following: using diff. structures for sentences, starting sentences differently, using variety of vocabulary, carefully selecting synonyms, using correct mechanics including grammar, spelling and punctuation. // Citations including in-text or footnotes are probably NOT used at all, but there is a works cited page. //The assignment contains noticeable evidence of AI-generated content. student followed only 2 out of the 5 criteria for making writing sound human; this indicates that the student used AI to generate their responses. At least 1 AI-detection software indicates that there is some likelihood that this is AI-generated.

50%

0-1 of the required points were included re: intro to characters. extremely surface level. //In Scene 1 the student did ZERO of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In Scene 1, student did only ZERO of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. // In Scene 1, student did 1-2 of the following: using diff. structures for sentences, starting sentences differently, using variety of vocabulary, carefully selecting synonyms, using correct mechanics including grammar, spelling and punctuation. // Citations including in-text or footnotes are NOT used at all, and there may be NO works cited page either. //The assignment has substantial indications of AI-generated content. Student followed 0-1 of the criteria for making writing sound human. This indicates that the student used AI to create their assignment responses. At least two AI-detection software indicate that there is a moderate-high probability that the assignment was AI-generated.

did not complete

either did not complete this portion OR The assignment provides highly convincing evidence that a significant portion of its content is generated by AI, with minimal human input. There is no mention of (1) course materials, (5) no citations, and if there are quotes they are all longer than three lines. (2) It lacks natural language, includes vague or generic phrases, and (5) doesn’t properly cite quotes or facts, indicating probable AI-generated content. (4) There’s no clear presence of the student’s personal experiences. (3) The student’s voice, tone, or style is not discernible. At least three AI-detection software indicate that there is a high probability that the assignment was AI-generated. The assignment will be given a grade of 0 and the student will need to revise it.

100%

Four or more of these aspects regarding historical background and character development were addressed in a new, unique and original manner. These include: historical background, social context, character positionality, and citations. Student follows assignment instructions, uses correct course materials based on these instructions, writing considers its audience correctly, has a clear purpose and point that is summarized in a sentence. Citations including in-text or footnotes are used for every statement made, not just in a works cited page. //No evidence that this was ai generated. If ai was used, student included the original comment from ai chat bot, cited it, and revised it, following all five requirements for making writing sound more human.

90%

3 out of the four required questions are answered through a mostly new, original and innovative version, but could be more in-depth. These include: historical background, social context, character positionality, and citations. In Scene 2 the student did 4-5 of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In Scene 2, student did all 3 of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. Citations including in-text or footnotes are used for MOST but not ALL statements made, not just in a works cited page.///There are minor indications that some content in the assignment might be AI-generated. Student followed only 4 out 5 requirements for making writing sound more human; this indicates that the student may have used AI to generate their responses.

80%

2 out of the four questions are answered via a somewhat original version, but questions answered vaguely/generally, lacking specifics. These include: historical background, social context, character positionality, and citations. The student’s work is not very original or innovative and it seems to similar to past student work / current student work. In Scene 2 the student did 2-3 of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In Scene 2, student did 1-2 of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. // In Scene 2, student did 4-5 of the following: using diff. structures for sentences, starting sentences differently, using variety of vocabulary, carefully selecting synonyms, using correct mechanics including grammar, spelling and punctuation. // Citations including in-text or footnotes are used for a FEW but not ALL statements made, not just in a works cited page. //Student followed only 3 out of 5 requirements for making writing sound human. Still no AI-detection software detects a likelihood of ai-generated content.///Student followed only 3 out of 5 requirements for making writing sound human. Still no AI-detection software detects a likelihood of ai-generated content.

70%

only 1 of the questions is answered via submitted assignment and it is very brief/vague. These are surface level and need more depth. This scene is not new, original or innovative. // In Scene 2 the student did only 1 of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In Scene 2, student did only 1 of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. // In Scene 2, student did 2-3 of the following: using diff. structures for sentences, starting sentences differently, using variety of vocabulary, carefully selecting synonyms, using correct mechanics including grammar, spelling and punctuation. // Citations including in-text or footnotes are probably NOT used at all, but there is a works cited page./The assignment contains noticeable evidence of AI-generated content. student followed only 2 out of the 5 criteria for making writing sound human; this indicates that the student used AI to generate their responses. At least 1 AI-detection software indicates that there is some likelihood that this is AI-generated.

50%

none of the questions are answered re: hist. background and char. devp. extremely surface level. In Scene 2 the student did ZERO of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In Scene 2, student did only ZERO of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. // In Scene 2, student did 1-2 of the following: using diff. structures for sentences, starting sentences differently, using variety of vocabulary, carefully selecting synonyms, using correct mechanics including grammar, spelling and punctuation. // Citations including in-text or footnotes are NOT used at all, and there may be NO works cited page either. /The assignment has substantial indications of AI-generated content. Student followed 0-1 of the criteria for making writing sound human. This indicates that the student used AI to create their assignment responses. At least two AI-detection software indicate that there is a moderate-high probability that the assignment was AI-generated.

did not complete

either did not complete this portion OR The assignment provides highly convincing evidence that a significant portion of its content is generated by AI, with minimal human input. There is no mention of (1) course materials, (5) no citations, and if there are quotes they are all longer than three lines. (2) It lacks natural language, includes vague or generic phrases, and (5) doesn’t properly cite quotes or facts, indicating probable AI-generated content. (4) There’s no clear presence of the student’s personal experiences. (3) The student’s voice, tone, or style is not discernible. At least three AI-detection software indicate that there is a high probability that the assignment was AI-generated. The assignment will be given a grade of 0 and the student will need to revise it.

100%

completed new, original and innovative scene 3 using at least six aspects of the “summary of arguments” and all are well-developed: significance, evidence, elaboration, contrasts, commonalities, differences, citations. //Student follows assignment instructions, uses correct course materials based on these instructions, writing considers its audience correctly, has a clear purpose and point that is summarized in a sentence. Citations including in-text or footnotes are used for every statement made, not just in a works cited page. //No evidence that this was ai generated. If ai was used, student included the original comment from ai chat bot, cited it, and revised it, following all five requirements for making writing sound more human.

90%

the new version is mostly original and innovative, but still needs development and elaboration. Addresses 5 of the required 6 questions for Scene 3 which include: significance, evidence, elaboration, contrasts, commonalities, differences, citations. // In Scene 3 the student did 4-5 of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In Scene 3, student did all 3 of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. Citations including in-text or footnotes are used for MOST but not ALL statements made, not just in a works cited page.////There are minor indications that some content in the assignment might be AI-generated. Student followed only 4 out 5 requirements for making writing sound more human; this indicates that the student may have used AI to generate their responses.

80%

In their new version of scene 3, student did only 3-4 of the required 6 questions: significance, evidence, elaboration, contrasts, commonalities, differences, citations. Some of the text for scene 3 is overly vague or general and lacks specifics. The student’s work is not very original or innovative and it seems too similar to past student work / current student work. In Scene 3, the student did 2-3 of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In Scene 3, student did 1-2 of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. // In Scene 3, student did 4-5 of the following: using diff. structures for sentences, starting sentences differently, using variety of vocabulary, carefully selecting synonyms, using correct mechanics including grammar, spelling and punctuation. // Citations including in-text or footnotes are used for a FEW but not ALL statements made, not just in a works cited page. //Student followed only 3 out of 5 requirements for making writing sound human. Still no AI-detection software detects a likelihood of ai-generated content.

70%

only includes 3 of the 6 requirements: significance, evidence, elaboration, contrasts, commonalities, differences, citations for Scene 3. It is very brief/vague. These are surface level and need more depth. This scene is not new, original or innovative. // In Scene 3 the student did only 1 of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In Scene 3, student did only 1 of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. // In Scene 3, student did 2-3 of the following: using diff. structures for sentences, starting sentences differently, using variety of vocabulary, carefully selecting synonyms, using correct mechanics including grammar, spelling and punctuation. // Citations including in-text or footnotes are probably NOT used at all, but there is a works cited page./The assignment contains noticeable evidence of AI-generated content. student followed only 2 out of the 5 criteria for making writing sound human; this indicates that the student used AI to generate their responses. At least 1 AI-detection software indicates that there is some likelihood that this is AI-generated.

50%

only includes 1 or 2 of the 6 requirements for the “summary of arguments”; extremely surface level. In this scene the student did ZERO of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In this scene, student did only ZERO of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. // In this scene, student did 1-2 of the following: using diff. structures for sentences, starting sentences differently, using variety of vocabulary, carefully selecting synonyms, using correct mechanics including grammar, spelling and punctuation. // Citations including in-text or footnotes are NOT used at all, and there may be NO works cited page either. //The assignment has substantial indications of AI-generated content. Student followed 0-1 of the criteria for making writing sound human. This indicates that the student used AI to create their assignment responses. At least two AI-detection software indicate that there is a moderate-high probability that the assignment was AI-generated.

did not complete

either did not complete this portion OR The assignment provides highly convincing evidence that a significant portion of its content is generated by AI, with minimal human input. There is no mention of (1) course materials, (5) no citations, and if there are quotes they are all longer than three lines. (2) It lacks natural language, includes vague or generic phrases, and (5) doesn’t properly cite quotes or facts, indicating probable AI-generated content. (4) There’s no clear presence of the student’s personal experiences. (3) The student’s voice, tone, or style is not discernible. At least three AI-detection software indicate that there is a high probability that the assignment was AI-generated. The assignment will be given a grade of 0 and the student will need to revise it.

100%

completed the new, original, innovative scene with all 5 aspects of the “conclusion” and all are well-developed: argument summary, persuasiveness, present moment, citations, back from the dead./No evidence that this was ai generated. If ai was used, student included the original comment from ai chat bot, cited it, and revised it, following all five requirements for making writing sound more human.

90%

includes 4-5 of the 5 requirements in their mostly unique and innovative scene, 1 needs development– argument summary, persuasiveness, present moment, citations, back from the dead. / In this scene the student did 4-5 of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In this scene, student did all 3 of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. Citations including in-text or footnotes are used for MOST but not ALL statements made, not just in a works cited page.///There are minor indications that some content in the assignment might be AI-generated. Student followed only 4 out 5 requirements for making writing sound more human; this indicates that the student may have used AI to generate their responses.

80%

completed 3 of the 5 requirements: argument summary, persuasiveness, present moment, citations, back from the dead. Some of the text for this scene is overly vague or general and lacks specifics. The student’s work is not very original or innovative and it seems too similar to past student work / current student work. In this scene, the student did 2-3 of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In this scene, student did 1-2 of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. // In this scene, student did 4-5 of the following: using diff. structures for sentences, starting sentences differently, using variety of vocabulary, carefully selecting synonyms, using correct mechanics including grammar, spelling and punctuation. // Citations including in-text or footnotes are used for a FEW but not ALL statements made, not just in a works cited page. //Student followed only 3 out of 5 requirements for making writing sound human. Still no AI-detection software detects a likelihood of ai-generated content.

70%

only includes 2-3 of the 5 requirements: argument summary, persuasiveness, present moment, citations, back from the dead. This scene is very brief/vague. This scene is surface level and needs more depth. This scene is not new, original or innovative. // In this scene the student did only 1 of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In this scene, student did only 1 of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. // In this scene, student did 2-3 of the following: using diff. structures for sentences, starting sentences differently, using variety of vocabulary, carefully selecting synonyms, using correct mechanics including grammar, spelling and punctuation. // Citations including in-text or footnotes are probably NOT used at all, but there is a works cited page./The assignment contains noticeable evidence of AI-generated content. student followed only 2 out of the 5 criteria for making writing sound human; this indicates that the student used AI to generate their responses. At least 1 AI-detection software indicates that there is some likelihood that this is AI-generated.

50%

only includes 1 or 2 of the 5 requirements for the “conclusion”; In this scene the student did ZERO of the following: followed instructions, used correct course materials, made their writing understandable, wrote with a clear purpose that can be summed up briefly, was well organized. // In this scene, student did only ZERO of the following: The topic sentences sum up the paragraphs. The writing is unified and paragraphs are separated in a way to promote unity and understanding. // In this scene, student did 1-2 of the following: using diff. structures for sentences, starting sentences differently, using variety of vocabulary, carefully selecting synonyms, using correct mechanics including grammar, spelling and punctuation. // Citations including in-text or footnotes are NOT used at all, and there may be NO works cited page either. //The assignment has substantial indications of AI-generated content. Student followed 0-1 of the criteria for making writing sound human. This indicates that the student used AI to create their assignment responses. At least two AI-detection software indicate that there is a moderate-high probability that the assignment was AI-generated.

did not complete

either did not complete this portion OR The assignment provides highly convincing evidence that a significant portion of its content is generated by AI, with minimal human input. There is no mention of (1) course materials, (5) no citations,

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s & .

$(function () { SPTutorBidCalculatorFinalizationController.init({ ‘defaultPrices’ : {“1″:”$1.00″,”3″:”$3.00″,”5″:”$5.00″,”7″:”$7.00″,”10″:”$10.00″,”15″:”$15.00″,”20″:”$20.00″,”25″:”$25.00″,”30″:”$30.00″,”35″:”$35.00″,”40″:”$40.00″,”50″:”$50.00″,”60″:”$60.00″,”70″:”$70.00″,”80″:”$80.00″,”90″:”$90.00″,”100″:”$100.00″,”125″:”$125.00″,”150″:”$150.00″,”175″:”$175.00″,”200″:”$200.00″,”250″:”$250.00″,”300″:”$300.00″,”400″:”$400.00″,”500″:”$500.00″,”600″:”$600.00″,”700″:”$700.00″,”800″:”$800.00″,”900″:”$900.00″,”1000″:”$1000.00”}, ‘defaultPrice’ : 6.00, ‘educationLevel’ : 2, ‘defaultTime’ : 2, ‘defaultTimeType’ : 1, ‘bidExist’ : false }); });

New Student(15% commission rate)

To make sure new students have a great experience on Studypool, your service and answer quality will be held to the highest standard.
Because of this, this question has a reduced commission rate (15%). Working with new students successfully also increases your chances of earning the Ambassador badge.

Price

$6.00

---

$1.00$3.00$5.00$7.00$10.00$15.00$20.00$25.00$30.00$35.00$40.00$50.00$60.00$70.00$80.00$90.00$100.00$125.00$150.00$175.00$200.00$250.00$300.00$400.00$500.00$600.00$700.00$800.00$900.00$1000.00

 Calculator

info

The price you quoted is higher than the student’s budget range.

info

You can’t bid below the student’s budget.

How the price calculator worksclear

Please give a rough estimate of how many hours you think it would take to complete this question. Studypool will recommend a budget based on our.

College Level Questions: $25.00 per hour

HOURS

timer

=

PRICE

attach_money

Note:If the calculated price is lower than the students budget, we will automatically increase the price to match the students budget.

Delivery Time

DaysHours

info

The time you require to work on the question is longer than what the student has specified.

A 15% commission rate will be deducted upon completing this question.

Download our Tutor exclusive app for free! Browse, bid and receive status updates directly to your phone!

Confirm tutor

Do you want to start working with this tutor?

assignmentPodcast debate

check_box_outline_blank

I acknowledge that Studypool did NOT recommend this tutor for your question and I understand thatnon-recommended tutors might provide low-quality help and result in an unsatisfactory experience.

CONFIRM TUTOR

Please wait…

By confirming this tutor you agree to our , and you’ve familiarized yourself with our .

How to get the Best Tutors!

attach_money

CORRECT BUDGETS

Make sure your Budget range is not too low. Higher budgets will attract quality tutors.

create

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Make sure to describe your question and requirements in as much detail as possible. The more information you can give the tutor, the better!

school

EDUCATION LEVEL

Make sure you choose the appropriate education level for your questions. Education levels that are not aligned with your questions will result in bad answers.

Ongoing Conversations

Almost there!

Let’s finish setting up your account!

USERNAME

PASSWORD

You agree to our & .

(function() { var _fbq = window._fbq || (window._fbq = []); if (!_fbq.loaded) { var fbds = document.createElement(‘script’); fbds.async = true; fbds.src = ‘//connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbds.js’; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(fbds, s); _fbq.loaded = true; } })(); window._fbq = window._fbq || []; window._fbq.push([‘track’, ‘6016684760978’, {‘value’:’0.01′,’currency’:’USD’}]); /* */

(function() { var _fbq = window._fbq || (window._fbq = []); if (!_fbq.loaded) { var fbds = document.createElement(‘script’); fbds.async = true; fbds.src = ‘//connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbds.js’; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(fbds, s); _fbq.loaded = true; } })(); window._fbq = window._fbq || []; window._fbq.push([‘track’, ‘6013272518778’, {‘value’:’0.01′,’currency’:’USD’}]);

As seen on

var send = 0; function change(){ $(‘#resend’).show(); } function resend(){ alert(‘You have already verified your email address. Please click “Login” on the navigation bar and login to your Studypool account directly.’); }

var fb_param = {}; fb_param.pixel_id = ‘6010589096578’; fb_param.value = ‘0.00’; fb_param.currency = ‘USD’; (function(){ var fpw = document.createElement(‘script’); fpw.async = true; fpw.src = ‘//connect.facebook.net/en_US/fp.js’; var ref = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0]; ref.parentNode.insertBefore(fpw, ref); })(); /* */

(function() { var _fbq = window._fbq || (window._fbq = []); if (!_fbq.loaded) { var fbds = document.createElement(‘script’); fbds.async = true; fbds.src = ‘//connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbds.js’; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(fbds, s); _fbq.loaded = true; } })(); window._fbq = window._fbq || []; window._fbq.push([‘track’, ‘6013272518778’, {‘value’:’0.01′,’currency’:’USD’}]);(function() { var _fbq = window._fbq || (window._fbq = []); if (!_fbq.loaded) { var fbds = document.createElement(‘script’); fbds.async = true; fbds.src = ‘//connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbds.js’; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(fbds, s); _fbq.loaded = true; } })(); window._fbq = window._fbq || []; window._fbq.push([‘track’, ‘6016684760978’, {‘value’:’0.01′,’currency’:’USD’}]);

Student Privacy

Sharing information, including screenshots, regarding any question or student on Studypool with any third parties is strictly prohibited per our .A breach could result in legal action against you by Studypool and/or any student(s) involved.

check_box

I acknowledge that compromising user’s privacy is illegal / against Studypool’s terms, and could result in legal actions against me.

OKAY