| ahmed alaa | 3 |
| ahmed aly | 3 |
| ahmed ayman | 4 |
| ahmed farouk | 3.5 |
| ahmed mostafa | 3 |
| ahmed omar | 3.5 |
| hisham rabie | 1 |
| ibrahim galal | 2.5 |
| kholoud raafat | 3.5 |
| lina nabil | 3.5 |
| maria nicola | 2.5 |
| marian moheb | 4 |
| menna fathy | 2.5 |
| mina karam | 2.5 |
| mina nicola | 4 |
| mo ezzat | 3.5 |
| mostafa hany | 3.5 |
| nada alaa | 4 |
| nathalie amir | 3.5 |
| neveen ali | 4 |
| ola mokhtar | 3 |
| omar khaled | 3 |
| omar said | 4 |
| rafik farid | 3 |
| salma sameh | 3.5 |
| sarah sameh | 4.5 |
| sherif ahmed | 3 |
| shrouk moataz | 4 |
Some general notes on people's performance:
- In explaining the chat dialogues a lot of you would say things like "the computer said 'I think' and a computer cannot think, therefore it's not a computer". This is not sufficient. You need to find better reasons and explain your reasoning more.
A good example to follow came from Mina Karam:
"I don't think you're serious, by winter's day ..."
B understands that what A said has a literal meaning and another meaning (tashbeeh) [analogy or metaphor]; a computer wouldn't understand this.
A bad example is that of Rafik Farid:
B is not a computer because of the sentence "I don't think".
Rafik, you must explain more.
- In the question about finding two errors in the predicate logic statement concerning rents in Alex and Cairo, many of you were very unclear.
Ahmed Mostafa wrote a predicate logic statement without putting arrows, or anything, to show what corrections he made. Not good.
Mina Nicola wrote out the parts with the errors, and then made a point of listing each correction separately. Well done.
Shrouk Moataz put arrows on the corrections and labelled them "error" - good enough.
- Going back to the dialogue question, many of you accepted the hypothesis and started to explain on that basis. E.g., "Q is programmed so that when it finds that P is not sure, it asks him 'why are you not sure?'" Here, the student assumed that Q is a computer already. But the question asks you to show evidence that Q is a computer. Many of you started with the hypothesis as if it is already proven. Say something like: it is likely that when Q replied to P's 'might' with 'why are you not sure', Q had not understood, or chosen to ignore, the content of P's statement. Such behaviour is typical of an automaton, unless if Q is an uncooperative human being.
- Also in the dialogue question, many of you said things like "a computer cannot feel", "a computer cannot think", but computers can be programmed to say I feel, I think, so go deeper.
- I was very disappointed to find that many of you thought this was an example of inductive reasoning. Wrong!
Premise: All philosophy majors are quiet.
Premise: Nageeba is a philosophy major.
Conclusion: Nageeba is quiet.
- Please improve your grammar.
No comments:
Post a Comment