COMP90087 · The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
Essay and Exam Strategy
This chapter converts theory into marks across all three written assessments: the Week-6 closed-book handwritten in-class essay (30%), the 1500-word research essay (30%), and the 120-minute closed-book digital exam (30%) that is a hurdle you must pass at 50% or above to pass the subject. It teaches the argumentative-essay structure the rubric rewards (clear position, evaluate not list, rebut an objection, reasoned conclusion) and the exam techniques — “select all that apply” MCQs and the ~40-word, one-mark-per-point short answer. It is the highest-leverage revision you can do.
What this chapter covers
- 01The three written assessments: in-class essay (30%), research essay (30%), and the 120-minute closed-book hurdle exam (30%)
- 02The hurdle rule: you must score at least 50% on the exam or receive grade NH and fail the subject regardless of your essays
- 03The argumentative-essay structure: introduction (roadmap + clear position), main body (apply a theory, evaluate not list), rebuttal, reasoned conclusion
- 04Strong vs weak essays: argument and consistent theory-application vs descriptive summary, listing, circular reasoning, unstated assumptions
- 05In-class essay specifics: handwritten, closed-book, ~90 minutes, ~1000 words, drawn from Weeks 1–5, plan before writing
- 06Exam format: LockDown browser, ~30–40 MCQ (including “select all that apply”) + 3–4 short answers
- 07Short-answer technique: ~40 words, one mark per component (state the concept, why it matters ethically, give an example)
- 08“Select all that apply” technique: judge each option independently; any number can be correct
Plan a timed in-class ethics essay, mark by mark
- +1Introduction — stance and roadmap (~10% of words). Open by stating context and a clear position (“This essay argues that…”) and how you will argue it. Commit to ONE theory and name its variant (act vs rule utilitarian, Kantian vs Ross, Aristotelian vs care). Best drafted last; avoid hyperbole.
- +1Define and apply the theory to case detail. Explain the key concept for an intelligent non-expert, then apply it to specific features of the scenario — tie each judgement to a concrete fact (an accuracy gap, an opacity, a consent bypass), which is what separates argument from summary.
- +1Evaluate, don’t list. Weigh two or three key considerations rather than cataloguing everything; prioritise and show why one consideration outweighs another. Listing benefits and harms without weighing them is the classic mark-loser.
- +1Rebut one strong objection. Raise the best objection an opponent (often a rival theory) would make and answer it from within your chosen framework — this demonstrates the critical evaluation the rubric wants and pre-empts the obvious counter.
- +1Reasoned conclusion (~5–10%). Synthesise rather than merely restate, put the thesis in fresh words, and say why the argument holds. Introduce no new arguments. State any assumptions you made when the scenario lacked detail, keeping them plausible.
Key terms
- Hurdle requirement
- An assessment you must pass on its own to pass the subject. In COMP90087 the 120-minute exam is the hurdle: 49% or below on it means grade NH (fail), regardless of your essay marks.
- Argumentative essay
- An essay that persuades the reader of a position built on one central thesis, evidence and argument — not a summary of what you know. Both COMP90087 essays are marked on this.
- Evaluate, don’t list
- The core rubric distinction: weigh and prioritise a few considerations and reach a reasoned conclusion, rather than cataloguing every benefit and harm without judging their relative weight.
- Rebuttal
- Raising the strongest objection to your position — often from a rival theory — and answering it from within your chosen framework. A marked feature of strong essays.
- “Select all that apply”
- An MCQ format in the exam where any number of options may be correct, so you must judge each option independently rather than assuming exactly one right answer.
- Short-answer structure
- The exam’s ~40-word items are marked one point per component — typically state the concept, say why it matters ethically, and give an example — so you should write one tight sentence per mark.
Essay and Exam Strategy FAQ
What makes the exam a ‘hurdle’ and why does it matter so much?
The 120-minute closed-book exam (30%) must be passed at 50% or above on its own; score 49% or below and you receive grade NH — a fail for the whole subject — no matter how strong your two essays are. That is why exam revision cannot be left to the end: it gates the entire subject, so being able to start every topic matters more than polishing a few.
How do I write a short answer that gets full marks?
Mirror the mark scheme: the ~40-word items are marked one point per component, usually state the concept, say why it matters ethically, and give a concrete example. Write one tight sentence per mark and stop — padding wastes time on a paper with 30–40 MCQs to also get through. Practise the format on training-data bias and planned obsolescence, the two clearest examples.
What separates a strong essay from a weak one here?
Strong essays define the chosen theory, name its variant, apply it consistently to concrete case features, evaluate and prioritise rather than list, rebut one objection, and synthesise in the conclusion. Weak essays summarise instead of arguing, list benefits and harms without weighing them, reason circularly, leave assumptions unstated, or use a theory vaguely. Commit to one theory and argue it, don’t survey all three.
Can AI help me practise for the COMP90087 essays and exam?
Yes, as a study aid. Sia can set fresh scenarios and mark your essay plans against the four rubric moves, generate “select all that apply” MCQs and ~40-word short-answer drills, and explain each step and where marks are won or lost. It is built to mirror how the University of Melbourne assesses this subject and does not do graded assessment for you — University of Melbourne academic-integrity rules and the subject’s GenAI policy apply, so use it to rehearse the method, not to generate work you submit.
Exam move
Spend your revision on the two skills that are actually marked: the four-move argumentative essay (clear position, apply a theory to case detail, evaluate and rebut, synthesise) and the one-mark-per-sentence short answer. Because the exam is a closed-book hurdle you must pass at 50%, prioritise breadth — be able to start every topic — over perfecting a few, and drill “select all that apply” by judging each option independently. Rehearse timed plans for the in-class essay (Weeks 1–5, ~1000 words, ~90 minutes) and outline the research essay early. Confirm the examination-period date, room and permitted materials on Canvas and your personal University of Melbourne exam timetable, and note the exam is timetabled during the mid-year examination period around June 2027 — do not assume a fixed date. Keeping this material in active recall through SWOTVAC, rather than starting it there, is what protects your WAM.
Working through Essay and Exam Strategy in COMP90087? Sia is AskSia’s AI AI Ethics tutor — ask any COMP90087 Essay and Exam Strategy question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how COMP90087 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
