From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Apr 4 19:34:56 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l34NYuL9027264 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l34NYq35079538 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:34:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 19999 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2007 23:34:52 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 4 Apr 2007 23:34:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 3709 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2007 23:34:51 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 4 Apr 2007 23:34:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 28473 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2007 23:34:36 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 4 Apr 2007 23:34:36 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4387106 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:34:36 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 19674 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2007 23:34:36 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 4 Apr 2007 23:34:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 7550 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2007 23:34:35 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 4 Apr 2007 23:34:35 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l34NYZ7c027236 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:34:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l34NYZfJ027235 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:34:35 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704042334.l34NYZfJ027235@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:34:35 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: POSITION PAPER #4 GRADING To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3014/Wed Apr 4 14:32:14 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 3736 ======================================================================== Position Paper #4 Grading Rubric Version: 3 Apr 07 ======================================================================== As I noted in the Hints posted to the Listserv, there are 3 **valid** sub-arguments: Arg't A = 1,2,3; therefore, 4 Arg't B = 5,6; therefore, 7 Arg't C = 4,7,9; therefore, 10 So, you really only need to evaluate the argument for soundness; i.e., are all the premises true (or, more leniently, do you agree with all of the premises)? More precisely, since 10 conflicts with the law (8), you have two options: Accept the law, and reject 10. In that case, you must reject at least one of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9: Which one, and why? (This is the "Alan Newell" solution.) Or else you can accept 10 and reject the law. (Of course, you can't do that in real life unless maybe you're a legislator (who can can write new laws)(see footnote (*), below) or a Supreme Court justice (who can declare laws unconstitutional) (see footnote (+), below.) In that case, you should propose a new law. (This is the "David Koepsell" solution.) ======================================================================== a) Evaluation of premise 1: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 b) Evaluation of premise 2: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 c) Evaluation of premise 3: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 d) Evaluation of conclusion 4: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 Note: All I'm asking is whether you agree with 4, and why; I am *not* asking whether you think 4 follows validly; we are assuming that it does. If you really think that 4 does not follow validly, that's OK: Please explain why. e) Evaluation of premise 5: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 f) Evaluation of premise 6: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 g) Evaluation of conclusion 7: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 (see note for 4, above) h) Evaluation of premise 9: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 i) Evaluation of conclusion 10: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 (see note for 4, above) j) Your resolution of the inconsistency between 8 and 10: 0,1,2,3 ======================================================================== The total is 30 points, which, following my grading theory, maps into letter grades as follows: letter CSE484 both CSE/PHI584 A 29-30 A- 28 B+ 26-27 B 24-25 B- 23 C+ 21-22 C 18-20 11-20 C- 14-17 D+ 11-13 D 6-10 F 0-5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On my grading scheme, "A" means "understood the material for all practical purposes", (here, that's 30 pts = 10 questions * 3 pts full credit) "B" has no direct interpretation, but comes about when averaging A's and C's, "C" means "average", (here, that's 20 pts = 10 * 2 pts partial credit) "D" means "did not understand the material, (here, that's 10 pts = 10 * 1 pt minimum credit) "F" usually means "did not do the work" (i.e., 0 pts), but can also come about when averaging D's and F's. Please see my grading website, http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/howigrade.html for the theory behind all of this, which I'm happy to discuss on the Listserv. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Footnotes: (*) Compare: Propose new axioms? (+) Compare: Prove that a law is not a theorem of the US Constitution? (There's a story that the famous logician Kurt Goedel found an inconsistency in the US Constitution when he was studying for his American citizenship. He was going to tell the judge about it, but Albert Einstein, who accompanied him to the ceremony, quickly changed the subject :-) See: Goldstein, Rebecca (2006), Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Godel (Norton).