"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.
The argument stated by the author gives a solution to the problem of rising cheating in colleges and universities. The solution is honor code, which has successfully reduced cheating rate, when adopted by Groveton College. Reports of survey were used to show the efficiency of such code. However, the reasons given to support the code lacks cogency and hence, are not justified.
For example, as per the author, Groveton College calls for students who assures not to cheat in their academics, however, only based on assurance of students of Groveton College, can we accept the honor code? What if students of this particular student agree not cheat, but the students of other colleges refused for such an agreement? Or what if they agree but still continued cheating? These all situations are not properly justified by the author and hence the argument is somewhat fallacious.
Secondly, Groveton’s honor code replaced a system encompassing close monitoring with a different protocol. Also, as per author, under the new system, teachers reported an average of thirty cheating cases in one year. But, on what basis it can be assumed that the teachers reported correctly? It might be possible that the average calculated by faculty, actually neglected the dispersion of cheating cases in one year. Apart from this, no information is given regarding the month in which more cheatings were done. Hence it is devoid of persuasiveness.
Thirdly, the statistics are given so as to show the drop of number of cheating cases from 21 cases in first year of enactment to 14 cases in fifth year. Furthermore, a recent survey shows a majority of Groveton student to confess that they are less likely to cheat with honor code in place than without. On this basis, the author concluded that every college should impose this code. However, no cogent or firm study is done so as to know who these students are? Are they frequent cheaters or honest students? What if they never cheat? Along with this, the author overshadows a fact that every student is different. If a code is working on Groveton College students, it cannot be confirmed that it will work on other college students too. Therefore, the author should consider such points before imposing the code on students of other colleges.
To conclude, the argument is not wholly fallacious. It is possible that honor code might work on other students too. But, the author might strengthen his statement by examining thoroughly and providing much weighty evidences in support of his argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 519, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...onth in which more cheatings were done. Hence it is devoid of persuasiveness. Thirdl...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 35, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...ess. Thirdly, the statistics are given so as to show the drop of number of cheating cas...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 425, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...owever, no cogent or firm study is done so as to know who these students are? Are they f...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'therefore', 'third', 'thirdly', 'apart from', 'as to', 'for example']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.247379454927 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.155136268344 0.15541462614 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0607966457023 0.0836205057962 73% => OK
Adverbs: 0.062893081761 0.0520304965353 121% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0293501048218 0.0272364105082 108% => OK
Prepositions: 0.142557651992 0.125424944231 114% => OK
Participles: 0.0524109014675 0.0416121511921 126% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.68093440745 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.020964360587 0.026700313972 79% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0964360587002 0.113004496875 85% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0188679245283 0.0255425247493 74% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0188679245283 0.0127820249294 148% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2537.0 2731.13054187 93% => OK
No of words: 420.0 446.07635468 94% => OK
Chars per words: 6.04047619048 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.361904761905 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.290476190476 0.287650121315 101% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.228571428571 0.208842608468 109% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.111904761905 0.135150697306 83% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68093440745 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 207.018472906 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497619047619 0.469332199767 106% => OK
Word variations: 55.241368047 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.1538461538 23.2022227129 70% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.3725256629 57.7814097925 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.5769230769 141.986410481 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.1538461538 23.2022227129 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.769230769231 0.724660767414 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 45.2014652015 51.9672348444 87% => OK
Elegance: 1.78813559322 1.8405768891 97% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.426885586142 0.441005458295 97% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.103429526156 0.135418324435 76% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0807728916729 0.0829849096947 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.443706766303 0.58762219726 76% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.144736063002 0.147661913831 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.133781533362 0.193483328276 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0850624600751 0.0970749176394 88% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.333965074915 0.42659136922 78% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0571504562943 0.0774707102158 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.281227740884 0.312017818177 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0920303926277 0.0698173142475 132% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.