3551 Trousdale Rkwy, University Park, Los Angeles, CA
The Coursework 1 is the first of the two pieces of summative coursework
assessment for the module COMP1017 (Mathematics for Computer Scien-
tisits 1). It contributes to 12% of a student’s final marks of the module and
requires students to work in groups. The group information will be made
available on Moodle by 2 October 2020. Peer assessment will be conducted
at the end of the semester whereby students are required to evaluate their
group members’ performance on completing both the two pieces of course-
work. Peer assessment results will be combined with the group results of
both coursework to produce individual results for each of the students in a
The Coursework 1 is designed to assess students’ learning outcomes on
the topics of Propositional Logic, Predicate Logic, and Proof methods that
will have been covered in the lectures from the week 4 to week 6 of the
academic calendar 2020-2021. Students are also referred to the contents in
Chapter 1 of the main reference book, i.e., Rosen’s Discrete Mathematics and
Its Applications, Seventh Edition .
Sections 2 and 3 detail the coursework 1 requirements and deliverables,
respectively. The key dates of the coursework are specified in Section 4. The
marking scheme for the coursework is outlined in Section 5.
2 Coursework 1 Specifications
2.1 The Modified Software Engineering Code of Ethics
and Professional Practice
The following is a modified subset of the short version of the Software Engi-
neering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice 1.
1. PUBLIC - Software engineers shall act in the interest of the public.
2. CLIENT AND EMPLOYER – Software engineers shall act in a manner
that is in the interests of their client and employer and is in with the
3. PRODUCT – Software engineers shall ensure that their products meet
the highest professional standards possible.
4. JUDGMENT – Software engineers shall maintain integrity and inde-
pendence in their professional judgment.
5. MANAGEMENT – Software engineering managers and leaders shall
promote an ethical approach to the management of software develop-
ment and maintenance.
6. COLLEAGUES – Software engineers shall be fair to and supportive of
2.2 Problem Scenario
Engineer A is employed by a software company and is involved in the design
of specialized software in connection with the operations of facilities affecting
the public health and safety (i.e., nuclear, air quality control, water quality
control). As part of the design of a particular software system, Engineer A
conducts extensive testing, and although the tests demonstrate that the soft-
ware is safe to use under existing standards, Engineer A is aware of new draft
standards that are about to be released by a standard setting organization
1We modified the Code for the coursework specifically. The full version of the Code is
available at https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-code/. However,
it is not mandatory for you to use the full version to complete this coursework.
– standards which the newly designed software may not meet. Testing is ex-
tremely costly and the company’s clients are eager to begin to move forward.
The software company is eager to satisfy its clients, protect the software
company’s finances, and protect existing jobs; but at the same time, the
management of the software company wants to be sure that the software is
safe to use. A series of tests proposed by Engineer A will likely result in a
decision whether to move forward with the use of the software. The tests
are costly and will delay the use of the software at least six months, which
will put the company at a competitive disadvantage and cost the company
a significant amount of money. Also, delaying implementation will mean the
state public service commission utility rates will rise significantly during this
time. The company requests Engineer A’s recommendation concerning the
need for additional software testing.
You are required to use Boolean logic to
1. Convert the Code in section 2.1 to a set of rules as symbolic proposi-
2. Convert the facts presented in section 2.2 to symbolic propositions.
3. Wherever necessary, state the common knowledge that is not explicitly
presented in the rules in item 1 or the facts in item 2, and convert
the common knowledge to either rules or facts as symbolic proposi-
tions. Provide a short justification as to why it is considered common
4. Apply the relevant rules in items 1 and 3 to all the facts in items 2 and
3 to obtain new facts.
5. Based on the deduction and the new facts in item 4, answer the follow-
Does Engineer A have a professional obligation to inform his com-
pany of the reasons for needed additional testing and his recom-
mendations that it be undertaken?
Hint : As the modified short version of the Code in section 2.1 does not
contain detailed rules which are specified in the full version of the Code,
there may be a gap between the rules stipulated in the modified Code and
the facts described in the problem scenario in section 2.2. You are free to
either refer to the rules specified in the full version of the Code or to use
common knowledge to fill the gap.
You are free to structure your solutions but must include the following de-
1. A set of propositional variables representing the atomic facts. [10%]
2. A set of compound propositions involving the propositional variables
in item 1, representing the compound facts or rules. [20%]
3. A set of propositions involving the propositional variables in item 1,
representing the conclusions one has arrived at based on items 1 and 2.
This mainly corresponds to the results of item 4 in section 2.3. [30%]
4. A set of argument forms 2, each of which corresponds to each of the
conclusions you have arrived at in item 3. [30%]
5. The answer to the question posed in item 5 in section 2.3. [10%]
You must submit your solutions in a single PDF file with the name con-
vention as COMP1017-CW1-Group#.pdf where ‘#’ is the group number.
4 Key Dates
Release Date: 30 September 2020
Submission Deadline: 30 October 2020 @23:59 (GMT+8 Kuala Lumpur)
Feedback Date: 13 November 2020
2Please refer to the definition of an Augment Form on page 70 in 
5 Marking Scheme
For each set of the deliverables specified in section 3, the criteria of cor-
rectness, consistency, and unambiguity are used where appropriate to award
allocated marks. Whilst there are many variations of definitions of the three
criteria, we use them with respect to the following scope and context.
Correctness No facts or rules specified in sections 2.1 and 2.2 are expressed
wrongly as symbolic propositions. For example, if the sentence ‘The
moon is made of green cheese only if I am a millionaire’ is stated as
a rule but you expressed it as q → p where p represents ‘the moon is
made of green cheese’ and q represents ‘I am a millionaire’, then your
solution is incorrect.
Consistency There should be no conflicts between rules. It may be partic-
ularly relevant when you attempt to introduce common knowledge as
rules. Two rules are conflicting if and only if the conjunction of the
two rules results in a contradiction.
Unambiguity No facts or rules specified in sections 2.1 and 2.2 are ex-
pressed in such a way that a propositional variable is used to represent
more than one distinct facts, and/or in such a way that a propositional
variable is used to represent a compound proposition. For example,
the symbol p cannot be used to represent both sentences ‘the moon is
made of green cheese’ and ‘I am a millionaire’, and cannot be used to
represent ‘The moon is made of green cheese only if I am a millionaire’.
Marks will be deducted according to the proportion of the propositions
that are incorrect, inconsistent, or ambiguous for each set of the deliverables
specified in section 3. For example, if 20% of the propositions are incorrect,
10% of the propositions are inconsistent, and 5% of the propositions are
ambiguous, then in total 20%+10%+5% = 35% of the 20% allocated marks
for deliverable 3 in section 3 will be deducted.
Late submission will trigger penalty according to the Quality Manual
whereby 5 percentage marks would be deducted per day. For example, if a
submission is late by 1 day 2 hours, 5% marks will be deducted, whereas if
a submission is late by 1 day 12 hours, 10% marks will be deducted.
An interview may be organised for a group to present their solutions.
 Rosen, Kenneth H. Discrete mathematics and its applications, Seventh
Edition Mc Graw Hill, ISBN 0–07–338309–0, 2007.