Read “Topic 4: Vargas Family Case Study.” Write a 750-word paper in which you demonstrate how therapists apply Structural Family Therapy theory to analyze the presenting problems and choose appropriate interventions. Be sure to answer the following questions in your paper:  1. What are two current presenting problems for the Vargas family? 2. How are the problems maintained according to the Structural Family Therapy perspective? 3. What Structural interventions would you plan to use in your next session? (identify and describe your plan for two interventions)  Cite at least three academic sources (peer-reviewed journal articles, books, etc.). Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

RUBRIC

Two Presenting Problems   The paper does not discuss two current presenting problems for the Vargas family and does not make any connections through scholarly, academic research.   The paper vaguely discusses two current presenting problems for the Vargas family and makes few connections through scholarly, academic research.   The paper fully discusses two current presenting problems for the Vargas family and makes clear connections through scholarly, academic research.   The paper provides an advanced discussion of two current presenting problems for the Vargas family and makes sound connections through scholarly, academic research.   The paper provides a comprehensive discussion of two current presenting problems for the Vargas family and makes insightful connections through scholarly, academic research.    20.0 % How Problems are Maintained According to the Structural Family Therapy Perspective   The paper does not discuss how the problems are maintained according to the Structural Family Therapy perspective for the Vargas family and does not make any connections through scholarly, academic research.   The paper vaguely discusses how the problems are maintained according to the Structural Family Therapy perspective for the Vargas family and makes few connections through scholarly, academic research.   The paper fully discusses how the problems are maintained according to the Structural Family Therapy perspective for the Vargas family and makes clear connections through scholarly, academic research.   The paper provides an advanced discussion on how the problems are maintained according to the Structural Family Therapy perspective for the Vargas family and makes sound connections through scholarly, academic research.   The paper provides a comprehensive discussion on how the problems are maintained according to the Structural Family Therapy perspective for the Vargas family and makes insightful connections through scholarly, academic research.    20.0 % Two Structural Interventions for Next Sessions   The paper does not discuss two structural interventions to use in the next session with the Vargas family and does not make any connections through scholarly, academic research.   The paper vaguely discusses two structural interventions to use in the next session with the Vargas family and makes few connections through scholarly, academic research.   The paper fully discusses two structural interventions to use in the next session with the Vargas family and makes clear connections through scholarly, academic research.   The paper provides an advanced discussion of two structural interventions to use in the next session with the Vargas family and makes sound connections through scholarly, academic research.   The paper provides a comprehensive discussion of two structural interventions to use in the next session with the Vargas family and makes insightful connections through scholarly, academic research.    10.0 % Scholarly/Academic Sources (peer-reviewed journal articles, textbooks, etc.)   The paper omits scholarly, academic sources to support the responses described in the paper.    The paper includes inadequate scholarly, academic sources to support the responses described in the paper.   The paper includes adequate scholarly, academic sources to support the responses described in the paper.   The paper includes sound scholarly, academic sources that make connections to support the responses described in the paper.   The paper includes quality, well-researched scholarly, academic sources that make clear connections to support the responses described in the paper.    20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness      7.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose   Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.   Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.    Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.   Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.   Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.    8.0 % Argument Logic and Construction   Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.   Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.   Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.    Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.   Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.    5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)   Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.   Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.   Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.   Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.   Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.    10.0 %Format