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.
The author suggests that all colleges should copy the anti-cheating honor code that Groveton used at their university. Although the given reasons may appear sound, each are actually rife with holes that require further answers in order to determine if this recommendation is prudent.
First, this writer claims that although a report claims that cheating is on the rise among colleges, the amount of cheating is falling at Groveton College. This assertion fails to mention the degree of cheating that is occurring among all colleges. Was Groveton a unique college in that is was the only college that had a diminishing cheating rate? Without knowing how Groveton compares to the rest of the colleges that were reported on, it is difficult to know that Groveton’s anti-cheating method is much better than random.
Second, Groveton reported that one year 21 cases of cheating occurred compared to five years later where 14 cheating cases occurred. While these numbers are promising, has anyone done any testing to see if the reporting of the students is accurate? Surely students may not have any incentive to catch a friend who is cheating. Knowing the accuracy of the student reports is important because without it, its unknown if students are accurate at catching cheaters.
In a final analysis, the reasons on which the argument is based on are weak. More information, specifically about the current affair of all college cheating and the accuracy of student reporting is needed in order to come to the same conclusion that this author did.
flaws:
Need to analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:
condition 1:
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.
condition 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.
conclusion:
Thus, all colleges and universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's in order to decrease cheating among students.
then here goes the argument:
argument 1:
Maybe other reasons cause the decline of cheating.
argument 2:
there is no specific information regarding the scope of the survey. There might be only few students who participated to the survey.
argument 3:
It works for location A , but it doesn't mean it works for B. Other examples:
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...).
-------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 254 350
No. of Characters: 1266 1500
No. of Different Words: 147 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.992 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.984 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.596 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 100 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 80 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 56 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 18 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.538 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.682 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.462 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.409 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.635 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.211 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 2 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 254 350
No. of Characters: 1266 1500
No. of Different Words: 147 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.992 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.984 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.596 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 100 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 80 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 56 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 18 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.538 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.682 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.462 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.409 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.635 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.211 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5