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 would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In the given report, the author suggest that the honor codes implemented in Groveton College should be adopted by all colleges and universities in order to decrease the cheating among students. However, the argument is flawed for numerous following reasons, as it relies upon unwarranted assumptions.
Firstly, the author hastily assumes that the honor codes effectively decrease the number of cheating in Groveton College because the number of cheating reports has dropped significantly. However, this is a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not take into consideration of the differences between when teachers monitor and report cheatings and when students report their peers’ cheating. Even though there is no difference between two systems, it is possible that teachers are more likely to rigorously monitor and report than students do about their peers’ behaviors. If this is the case, even if the number of cheating report has been decreased, it might be just superficial, as many students condone their peers’ misbehaviors. To evaluate this argument, therefore, the author should ask if students are monitoring their peers as rigorously as the teachers had.
Secondly, even if the assumption above is somehow guaranteed to be true, the author still unreasonably assumes that the result of the recent survey, which shows that students answered they would cheat less with an honor code, can be trusted. However, commonsense tells us that it is possible that responded students lied to the questionnaire knowing that the result of the survey would be shared with the teachers of the school. Therefore, to corroborate the argument, the author should ask a question that if the survey secured the high credibility by ensuring students of confidentiality. If the argument showed somehow that most of the students were honest about their answers, the argument would be more convincing.
Lastly, the author makes a false analogy by claiming that an honor code worked in Groveton College would work in all universities and colleges in the country. However, this is a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any clear connection between Groveton College and all other schools in the country when it comes to adopting an honor code and its effectiveness. To evaluate this argument, the author should ask two questions. One is whether the national survey suggests the cheating is ‘on the rise’ indicates the overall increase across the country, or it is only led by a few schools had an exceptionally high cheating record. The other one is whether Groveton and all other universities and colleges share enough similarities that can guarantee the effectiveness of adopting the same honor code. If the author cannot provide answers that can bolster the argument, this claim cannot be evaluated.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore it is dubious. In order to evaluate the value of the decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all answers of the questions suggested.
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position 57
- Claim We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own Reason Disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree 95
- The following appeared in a business magazine."As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna, the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing. Promofoods concluded 83
- In any field of endeavor it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement 74
- Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoni 57
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.235934664247 0.25644967241 92% => OK
Verbs: 0.172413793103 0.15541462614 111% => OK
Adjectives: 0.059891107078 0.0836205057962 72% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0562613430127 0.0520304965353 108% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0290381125227 0.0272364105082 107% => OK
Prepositions: 0.127041742287 0.125424944231 101% => OK
Participles: 0.0417422867514 0.0416121511921 100% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.94279641995 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0181488203267 0.026700313972 68% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.132486388385 0.113004496875 117% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0254083484574 0.0255425247493 99% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.010889292196 0.0127820249294 85% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3090.0 2731.13054187 113% => OK
No of words: 489.0 446.07635468 110% => OK
Chars per words: 6.31901840491 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.41308793456 0.378187486979 109% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.335378323108 0.287650121315 117% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.255623721881 0.208842608468 122% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.128834355828 0.135150697306 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94279641995 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 207.018472906 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.439672801636 0.469332199767 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 49.6963888703 52.1807786196 95% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 25.7368421053 23.2022227129 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.4508055503 57.7814097925 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 162.631578947 141.986410481 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7368421053 23.2022227129 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.578947368421 0.724660767414 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 59.2746744161 51.9672348444 114% => OK
Elegance: 1.57042253521 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.354203500976 0.441005458295 80% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.15820294533 0.135418324435 117% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0953679483741 0.0829849096947 115% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.63334737351 0.58762219726 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.137787279239 0.147661913831 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.157499862513 0.193483328276 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0639902267959 0.0970749176394 66% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.479761997932 0.42659136922 112% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0370556806675 0.0774707102158 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.255305095482 0.312017818177 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0548441269455 0.0698173142475 79% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.87684729064 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 13.0 5.36822660099 242% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
Let's analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:
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. //maybe there are other reasons caused the decline of cheating
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. //maybe more students will not cheat if teachers closely monitored students;
Thus, all colleges and universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's in order to decrease cheating among students. //your argument 3
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 489 350
No. of Characters: 2512 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.702 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.137 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.799 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 197 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 154 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 108 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.737 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.92 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.355 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.574 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5