Problem Solving — CS & DS

Assignment 6 — The Method Portfolio (Block IV)

Due: week 31 · Weight: see assessment plan · Covers LO1, LO6, LO10, LO12 · Submit a written portfolio + one program.

This assignment is the bridge to the term project: you will assemble — and defend — the problem-solving method you have actually built across the course, using the course's own case studies as your evidence base.

Part 1 — The portfolio (8 marks)

Choose three case studies from different blocks (Block I: cs-001–016, Block II: cs-017–032, Block III: cs-033–064, Block IV: cs-065–128 — any three from distinct blocks; IDs from the case catalog).

For each, one page:

  1. The method you would apply today — not the case's published method, yours: name the first three moves you make on this problem and why each comes before the next. (3)
  2. What the case taught that generalises — one sentence, and one counter-example: a different problem where the same move would be the wrong first move. (3)
  3. The trace — re-solve the case's worked instance fresh (closed book; the point is that the method, not memory, does the work) and include your hand trace or the smallest program. (2)

Part 2 — The adversarial review (4 marks)

Swap portfolios with a partner. For each of their three pages, write one challenge: either a case where their stated first move leads them astray, or a hole in their generalisation claim. Be concrete: name the input or the move. Then write one sentence accepting or rebutting each challenge — both are fine; unaddressed challenges are not.

Part 3 — The unifying program (8 marks)

One program, ≤ 60 lines, standard library only, that demonstrates your portfolio's through-line: it must contain (i) one loop whose invariant you can state, (ii) one decomposition into ≥ 3 functions with stated contracts, (iii) one test table with a deliberate-failure row, and (iv) one paragraph naming which portfolio page each part exercises. The problem it solves is your choice — a validator for the university's email addresses, a small meeting-scheduler, a text-statistics tool — but it must be yours, not a course case restated.

Independent-reasoning component

Part 1's pages are inherently personal (your moves, your counter-examples) and Part 2 is written about a specific partner's portfolio — both are plagiarism-resistant by construction; submitting a portfolio whose pages could belong to anyone forfeits the mark. State your Part 2 partner by name. See integrity.

Submission checklist