Task 1 4.8+2.78+2.78=10/30
Functional algorithm elaborated, with most standard conventions that meet most of the minimum requirements. Functional code with some comments, in text, implements the algorithm to some extent, meets some of the minimum requirements. There may be significant redundancy in code. Sample output is limited to illustrate user interactivity, tests for few input values, while meeting some of the minimum requirements. Some display prompts are included and are unclear and/or ambiguous.
Marker comments: The flowchart doesn’t follow standard conventions: the decision block can’t have 4 outcomes. Input validation is not clear as well. The pseudocode doesn’t use data validation defined as sub process. The code given in Section 1 is not working due to the sub processes stock Data and sales Data being undefined. The validation code is not used. The output provided is not corresponding to the code given: stock Data and sales Data outputs are never seen in the code.
Task 2 3.92+4.5+4.64-13/30
Functional and/or reverse-engineered algorithm presented with some standard conventions that meet some of the minimum requirements. Fully commented code provided in text that implements the algorithm exactly and meets all the requirements. The code has little or no redundancy and no logical errors. Sample output illustrates user interactivity and tests ALL relevant values and meets all requirements. All display prompts included appropriately, are clear, unambiguous and without logical errors.
Marker comments: The flowchart contains a validation of Item ID which has never been implemented. The flowchart doesn’t give any details on the validation process. The pseudocode doesn’t define the subroutines and doesn’t output the total Cost of ALL stock. Both algorithm implementations are not following the task requirements, there is no need to ask for 5 items and then another five ones. The code doesn’t correspond to neither flowchart nor to the pseudocode, there are some significant differences. The code is functional and does perform the job, while slightly different from the one given in task. The output demonstrates some descent testing, but it doesn’t test 10 items input as well as some invalid data for quantity-threshold relation.
Turnitin score:51% The similarity is very high and further investigation is needed.
Task 1 4.8+2.78+2.78=10/30
Functional algorithm elaborated, with most standard conventions that meet most of the minimum requirements. Functional code with some comments, in text, implements the algorithm to some extent, meets some of the minimum requirements. There may be significant redundancy in code. Sample output is limited to illustrate user interactivity, tests for few input values, while meeting some of the minimum requirements. Some display prompts are included and are unclear and/or ambiguous.
Marker comments: The flowchart doesn’t follow standard conventions: the decision block can’t have 4 outcomes. Input validation is not clear as well. The pseudocode doesn’t use data validation defined as sub process. The code given in Section 1 is not working due to the sub processes stock Data and sales Data being undefined. The validation code is not used. The output provided is not corresponding to the code given: stock Data and sales Data outputs are never seen in the code.
Task 2 3.92+4.5+4.64-13/30
Functional and/or reverse-engineered algorithm presented with some standard conventions that meet some of the minimum requirements. Fully commented code provided in text that implements the algorithm exactly and meets all the requirements. The code has little or no redundancy and no logical errors. Sample output illustrates user interactivity and tests ALL relevant values and meets all requirements. All display prompts included appropriately, are clear, unambiguous and without logical errors.
Marker comments: The flowchart contains a validation of Item ID which has never been implemented. The flowchart doesn’t give any
details on the validation process. The pseudocode doesn’t define the subroutines and doesn’t output the total Cost of ALL stock.
Both algorithm implementations are not following the task requirements, there is no need to ask for 5 items and then another five
ones. The code doesn’t correspond to neither flowchart nor to the pseudocode, there are some significant differences. The code is
functional and does perform the job, while slightly different from the one given in task. The output demonstrates some descent
testing, but it doesn’t test 10 items input as well as some invalid data for quantity-threshold relation