The word 'Horoscope' translates at 'Hour Marker' from the original ancient Greek. In modern terms it's the Ascendant of an astrological chart. That is the degree of the sign rising on the Eastern Horizon at the moment and in the place where an event happens - such as a birth.
'Horoscopes' in the sense of this exercise are short predictions based on your Sun sign but the reason why they are called horoscopes is that they are based on the assumption that everyone, everywhere, is born with the Sun in the rising sign and that palpably is not the case. So even on an Astrological basis they are not a valid method of prediction for either individuals or even Sun sign groups. So they don't make use of the other planets, they don't make use of what your Ascendant actually is and your Ascendant is the key to everything.
You are quite right to bridle at the use of the term 'pseudo-science' especially as this is an a priori judgement not based on any evidence. Indeed as a 'scientific' enquiry it's deeply and fundamentally flawed it attempts to disprove Astrology, which it assumes to start with is false on the basis of writings which would be dismissed by Astrologers as valid.
Whilst you have to complete the assignment and Cafe Astrology or Astrology.com are good sites to use, you should also question the validity of any conclusions that are drawn.
Most Western Astrologers follow a 'psychological' approach based on the psychology of C G Jung, who himself was attracted to Astrology. So one might actually question whether if a psychologist supports Astrology, that shows that Psychology itself is suspect. Indeed I have seen Psychology described as a pseudo science. But does that criticism invalidate it. Are non-scientific disciplines invalid and without value.
Gauqelin is well worth investigation. There's also a research by Hans Eysenck that suggests at least qualified acceptance of Astrology. Refer to Astrology, Science or Superstion - which you might find in a library or can buy second hand from Amazon.
There's also the question of which Astrology. As Smiling indicates there's a whole branch of Jyotish, or Vedic Astrology, which is very different from Modern Western Astrology but still uses a chart set for the moment and place of birth. There's also quite a few twentieth century variants, not to mention the traditional approaches in the West, such as Hellenistic, Arab, Medieval and Seventeenth Century.
There are all sorts of related question, one of which is the nature of science itself. Astrology is not and never was entirely objective, in the sense of not requiring the subjective interpretation of evidence by an Astrologer working with the subjective input of a client (who may or may not be able to provide and objective view of his or her own personality). But then science itself is not as objective as it claims. One only has to look at disputes in the 'scientific' community to realise that.
I could, of course, be doing your teacher a disservice and they may be trying to simply look at all these issues through their exercise.
Good luck! 