Here's a draft of the grading rubric for Position Paper #5.

Because you need to spell out Pro's and Con's arguments in
premise-conclusion form, and because this may use up space,
it will not count against the word- and page-limits.

But if your paper is > 1 page, please STAPLE the pages together
(one staple, in upper left corner)
AND
please put your NAME on ALL pages.

========================================================================
Position Paper #5 Grading Rubric	            Version: 20 Apr 2010
========================================================================

a)  Incorrect use of "true", "false", "valid", "invalid", "sound",
    "unsound", "argument", "premise", "conclusion", etc.:

				-1 pt PER ERROR!

========================================================================

b)  PRO'S ARGUMENT

b1)  List of premises & conclusion for Pro's argument:

		3 = * clearly stated argument,
		    * premises & conclusion clearly identified,
		    * prems & conc clearly derived from dialogue	

		2 = neither clearly 3 nor 1,
		    including:  not correctly identifying
				some prem or conc.
				
		1 = arg not clearly presented
		    or not clearly derived from dialogue

		0 = missing

------------------------------------------------------------------------

b2)  Evaluation of validity of Pro's argument:

		3 = valid XOR invalid 
		    + clear explanation why
		      (including addition of any missing premises)
		2 = valid XOR invalid, unclear explanation
		1 = valid XOR invalid, no explanation
		0 = no evaluation of validity

------------------------------------------------------------------------

b3)  Evaluation of truth-value of Pro's premises:

Note:  Because each of you might have slightly different premises,
       I can't assign points to each one in any equally fair way,
       so I will grade you on your overall evaluation of the truth-
       values of the premises that you have explicitly identified.	

		6 = for EACH premise:
		    	truth-value clearly stated 
		    	& good reasons given

		4 = for SOME (but not all) premises:
		    	truth-value not stated
		    	OR no or weak reason given

		2 = for MOST (UPDATED: or all) premises:
		    	truth-value not stated
		    	OR no or weak reasons given		

		0 = no evaluation of truth-values of premises

[Note: Because of my "quantum" scheme of grading,
       it is not possible to get 1,3, or 5 points!]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

b4)  Evaluation of truth-value of Pro's conclusion:

		3 = if arg is sound,
			then that is your reason for believing conc,
				-- say so!
		    	else (if arg is not sound, then)
			     say whether you believe conc
			     & give clear reason why

		2 = neither clearly 1 nor 3

		1 = you think arg is not sound (which is fine),
		    but you give no clear statement of truth-value of conc
		    & no or weak reason given

		0 = no evaluation of conclusion

========================================================================

c)  CON'S ARGUMENT (to be graded similarly, namely:)

c1)  List of premises & conclusion for Con's argument:

	0,1,2,3 pts as above

c2)  Evaluation of validity of Con's argument:

	0,1,2,3 pts as above

c3)  Evaluation of truth-value of Con's premises:

	0,2,4,6 pts as above

c4)  Evaluation of truth-value of Con's conclusion:

	0,1,2,3 pts as above

========================================================================

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-			27-28
  B+			 26
  B			24-25
  B-			22-23
  C+			 21
  C	17-20			11-20
  C-	14-16
  D+	11-13
  D			6-10
  F			0-5

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On my "quantum-triage" grading scheme,

	"A" means "understood the material for all practical purposes",
		(here, that's 30 pts = 6 questions * 3 pts full credit
			 	     + 2 questions * 6 pts full credit)

	"B" has no direct interpretation,
	    but comes about when averaging grades of A and C

	"C" means "average",
		(here, that's 20 pts = 6 * 2 pts partial credit
				     + 2 * 4 pts partial credit)

	"D" means "did not understand the material,
		(here, that's 10 pts = 6 * 1 pt minimum credit
				     + 2 * 2 pts 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.