According to a recent report, cheating among college and university students is on the rise. However, Groveton College has successfully reduced student cheating by adopting an honor code, which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated. Groveton's honor code replaced a system in which teachers closely monitored students; under that system, teachers reported an average of thirty cases of cheating per year. In the first year the honor code was in place, students reported twenty-one cases of cheating; five years later, this figure had dropped to fourteen. Moreover, in a recent survey, a majority of Groveton students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without. Thus, all colleges and universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's in order to decrease cheating among students.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions
The author of the passage suggests to implement the honor code system the Groveton College adopted to other colleges and universities. While the proposal may sound plausible, the argument is based on several unproven assumptions and lacks the necessary information regarding the method efficiency and practicality.
First, the author assumes that the significant drop during the five years in cheating reports was due to the advantageous honor code influence. Indeed, the reporting reduced by twice the amount from twenty one to fourteen. However, students might have lost the feeling of excitement of looking out for the fellow cheaters and weren't interested in reporting anymore. Also, the students who made a majority of reports could have been the same people from year to year. Some of them graduated during these years, hence, the drop of the reports. The more detailed look on the reports and their authors is needed to conciser implementing the honor code to other schools.
Second, the author omits important information regarding the survey. For example, how many students were questioned? In order to base the argument on this results, the author should make sure that at least half of the students participated in the survey. Moreover, it is crucial to know were there any attempts to validate the survey? For instance, to look closely at the subsample of the interviewed students and to check whether they, indeed, used the honor code and cheated less. Otherwise, there is no evidence students told the truth in the survey, or no one wanted to admit they have been cheating even after the school have adopted the honor code.
Finally, there are no indications in the passage that the method had worked in the first place. As the author states, in the first year the honor code was implemented, students reported twenty-one cases of cheating. However, teachers reported an average of thirty cases of cheating per year. The author assumes this discrepancy indicates that the method started to work right away and, hence, there were less cheating students that year. But other possible explanation is that students haven't been able to account for the sufficient amount of cheaters, making the proposed methodology unpractical and useless.
To conclude, the author has failed to make a cogent and concise argument. Without the necessary information the argument sounds specious and misleading. Ultimately, the argument might have been strengthen by the more detailed survey summary and some insight on the method background and effectiveness.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK. In GRE/GMAT, we have to accept all data or evidence are true. It is important to find out loopholes behind surveys or studies. Loopholes mean that we accept all surveys told are true, but there are some conditions applied, for example:
It works for time A (10 years ago), but it doesn't mean it works for time B (nowadays).
It works for location A (a city, community, nation), but it doesn't mean it works for location B (another city, community, nation).
It works for people A (a manager), but it doesn't mean it works for people B (a worker).
It works for event A (one event, project... ), but it doesn't mean it works for event B (another event, project...).
It works for A and B, but not C.
......
here goes the argument 2:
Moreover, in a recent survey, a majority of Groveton students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without. //how about the rates if Groveton students are closed monitored by teachers,
argument 3 -- not OK.
Thus, all colleges and universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's in order to decrease cheating among students. //maybe it works only for some schools, not all of them
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 411 350
No. of Characters: 2092 1500
No. of Different Words: 207 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.503 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.09 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.59 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.682 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.306 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.514 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.076 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 27, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggests implementing'.
Suggestion: suggests implementing
The author of the passage suggests to implement the honor code system the Groveton Coll...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 200, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled with hyphen.
Suggestion: twenty-one
...orting reduced by twice the amount from twenty one to fourteen. However, students might ha...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 327, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...looking out for the fellow cheaters and werent interested in reporting anymore. Also, ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 151, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ioned? In order to base the argument on this results, the author should make sure th...
^^^^
Line 7, column 487, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...r possible explanation is that students havent been able to account for the sufficient...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 195, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'strengthened'.
Suggestion: strengthened
...ltimately, the argument might have been strengthen by the more detailed survey summary and...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'at least', 'for example', 'for instance', 'in the first place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.25 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.168859649123 0.15541462614 109% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0811403508772 0.0836205057962 97% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0372807017544 0.0520304965353 72% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0109649122807 0.0272364105082 40% => OK
Prepositions: 0.105263157895 0.125424944231 84% => OK
Participles: 0.0548245614035 0.0416121511921 132% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.68218613534 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0372807017544 0.026700313972 140% => OK
Particles: 0.00219298245614 0.001811407834 121% => OK
Determiners: 0.142543859649 0.113004496875 126% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0109649122807 0.0255425247493 43% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00438596491228 0.0127820249294 34% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2561.0 2731.13054187 94% => OK
No of words: 409.0 446.07635468 92% => OK
Chars per words: 6.26161369193 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49708221141 4.57801047555 98% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.403422982885 0.378187486979 107% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.312958435208 0.287650121315 109% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.229828850856 0.208842608468 110% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.119804400978 0.135150697306 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68218613534 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 207.018472906 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520782396088 0.469332199767 111% => OK
Word variations: 58.3867269832 52.1807786196 112% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 18.5909090909 23.2022227129 80% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.3496312222 57.7814097925 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.409090909 141.986410481 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5909090909 23.2022227129 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.863636363636 0.724660767414 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 49.8867526117 51.9672348444 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.88888888889 1.8405768891 103% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.326816149029 0.441005458295 74% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.122530526378 0.135418324435 90% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0660493262951 0.0829849096947 80% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.602457821597 0.58762219726 103% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.146484434039 0.147661913831 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.145769601538 0.193483328276 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0638119050365 0.0970749176394 66% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.529060501854 0.42659136922 124% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.106453593665 0.0774707102158 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.237754267363 0.312017818177 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.037498754467 0.0698173142475 54% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.87684729064 204% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.