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.
In the argument, the author has been talking about how the process of cheating has been reduced through the introduction of the honor code that says that if a student finds other classmates cheating in their academic endeavors then they are supposed to tell this to their faculty. Due to the implementation of this honor code system, the author has stated that the number of the average cases in a year has declined from thirty to fourteen cases in five years. Subsequently, the author suggests all colleges and universities to adopt this method similar to Groveton's to reduce the cheating amongst students. It is important to note here that the author has mentioned about the system but have not told what were the exact methods of implementation of the process. There are a certain number of faults that can be found in this argument. Therefore, I am not in complete support of the argument presented by the author.
Firstly, the author has claimed that the number of cases has significantly declined in five years. A possibility can be pointed out in this statement that what if the staff of the teachers was changed in this period and they had not been enlightened by the honor code completely and therefore did not monitored the students precisely as described in the honor code. Moreover, what if the level of corruption among the students and teachers have inclined and so the teachers stopped reporting the students that bribed them. Therefore, it is onerous to consider that the cases have decreased genuinely.
Secondly, the author has not mentioned how the admission process was affected due to this program and also what had happened with those students who were found guilty of the notion of cheating. It might have happened that due to the fear of getting expelled or punished once found guilty less number of students wanted to take admission in the college and in respect of that the reported cases were the same but looked as if they are declining.
Thirdly, the reputation of any college along with the overall score is also vital. The author has not mentioned whether the reputation of the college was decreased or increased by the implementation of the honor code. It might be a possibility that the rank of the college was decreasing due to the report of the several students being charged with cheating, to overcome this the teachers of the college might have decided to report as less number of students as possible. Maybe teachers were strict in the initial stages of the program but with time the enthusiasm of the teachers might have been lowered and then become lenient. Hence, there is ambiguity in taking into account whether the method is implemented correctly or not.
Lastly, I would end my note here by saying that by presenting a certain number of facts externally and not focusing on the internal matters of what and how to lead to different changes it is difficult to conclude a point that whether the report is right or wrong. The same can be concluded for this argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 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: 518 350
No. of Characters: 2457 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.771 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.743 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.562 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 137 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.537 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.543 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 302, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'monitor'
Suggestion: monitor
...r code completely and therefore did not monitored the students precisely as described in ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, look, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2505.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 518.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83590733591 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77070365392 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61806882504 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.420849420849 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 781.2 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.7765211246 57.8364921388 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.842105263 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2631578947 23.324526521 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.42105263158 5.70786347227 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.234208573066 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0687111793218 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0794520717545 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123686436301 0.128457276422 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0594231044833 0.0628817314937 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.3550499002 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.197005988 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.