Position Paper #4 Grading Rubric Version: 28 Mar 10 ======================================================================== In general: 3 = Statement of position ("agree"/"disagree", or "valid"/"invalid") with a clearly stated reason 2 = Statement of position, with an unclear reason 1 = Statement of position, with no reason given 0 = no response I WILL DEDUCT 3 POINTS FROM THE TOTAL GRADE FOR THE PAPER FOR INCORRECT USE OF THE TERMINOLOGY! (If you are not sure of how to use the terminology, please ask me!) AND MY OFFER TO GIVE YOU BACK ANY SUCH LOST POINTS (OR LOST POINTS FOR INCORRECT USE OF CITATIONS) STILL HOLDS ON ALL POSITION PAPERS. 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 statement 4: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 f) Evaluation of 1,2,3/.'.4: Valid? why? 0,1,2,3 g) Evaluation of premise 5: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 h) Evaluation of premise 6: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 i) Evaluation of statement 7: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 j) Evaluation of 5,6/.'.7: Valid? Why? 0,1,2,3 k) Discussion of premise 8: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 Since conclusion 10 conflicts with the law (8), you have two options: Either accept the law, and reject 10... [In that case, you must reject at least one of 1-7, & 9. Which one, and why? (This is the "Alan Newell" solution.)] ...or else reject the law, and accept 10. [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.) l) Evaluation of premise 9: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 m) Evaluation of statement 10: Agree? Why? 0,1,2,3 n) Evaluation of 4,7,9/.'.10: Valid? Why? 0,1,2,3 ======================================================================== The total is 39 points, which, following my grading theory, maps into letter grades as follows: letter CSE484 both CSE/PHI584 A 37-39 A- 35-36 B+ 33-34 B 31-32 B- 29-30 C+ 27-28 C 21-26 14-26 C- 18-21 D+ 14-17 D 7-13 F 0-6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On my grading scheme, "A" means "understood the material for all practical purposes", (here, that's 39 pts = 13 questions * 3 pts full credit) "B" has no direct interpretation, but comes about when averaging grades of A with Cs. "C" means "average", (here, that's 26 pts = 13 * 2 pts partial credit) "D" means "did not understand the material, (here, that's 13 pts = 13 * 1 pt minimum credit) "F" usually means "did not do the work" (i.e., 0 pts), but can also come about when averaging Ds and Fs. 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 via email. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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).)