CSE 4/510 & PHI 498, Spring 2004

# Suggestions and Guidelinesfor Peer-Group Editingof Position Paper #3

 Last Update: 25 March 2004, 8:30 p.m.` Note: or material is highlighted

1. Distribute your papers among the group members.

2. Spend 10-15 minutes on each paper. (If we start at about 9:45, you'll have about 65 minutes. If there are 2 papers in your group, you can spend about 30 minutes on each; if there are 3, spend about 20 minutes on each; if there are 4, spend about 15 minutes on each.)

• It's better if there are at least 3 papers per group, so, if there aren't, please let me know.

3. Here is my (incomplete) analysis:

1. The overall argument consists of 3 "sub"arguments:

1. 1,2,3; therefore, 4
2. 5,6; therefore, 7
3. 4,7,9; therefore, 10

2. All of them are valid (i.e., it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false).
3. But 10 conflicts with 8, which is true.
4. Therefore, 10 is false.
5. Therefore, at least one of 4, 7, 9 is false!
6. But if 4 is false, then at least one of 1, 2, 3 is false!
7. And if 7 is false, then at least one of 5, 6 is false!
8. So, which ones are false? And why do you think so?
9. Alternatively, if you are firmly convinced, for good reason, that 1,2,3,5,6 are all true, then you must think that the law (as expressed in 3,6, and especially 8) must be changed. How should it be changed?
10. Note that (at least on my reading of them) Newell 1985-1986 argues that at least one of 1,2,3,5,6 is false (i.e., "the models are broken"), while Koepsell 2000 argues that the law needs to be changed.

4. For each paper, ask as many of the following questions as you have time for:

1. Did the author correctly identify the 3 subarguments? If not, did the author have a good reason for analyzing it differently?
2. Did the author (correctly) evaluate the validity of the (sub)argument(s)?
3. Did the author evaluate the truth values of the premises and give reasons for his or her evaluations?

5. Keep a written record of the questions and replies. This will be useful to the author, for revision.

6. At home, over the next week, please revise your paper to take into consideration the comments made by your fellow students (i.e., your "peers"): Perhaps defend your claims better, or clarify statements that were misunderstood, etc. For help, see Dima or me.
 1-2 PAGE (250-500 WORD), TYPED, DOUBLE-SPACED, SINGLE-SIDED REVISION, 1 COPY, IS DUE AT THE BEGINNING OF LECTURE, THURSDAY, APR. 1. NO LATE PAPERS WILL BE ACCEPTED!