To combat the recently reported dramatic rise in cheating among college students, colleges and universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's, 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 an old-fashioned system in which teachers closely monitored students. Under that system, teachers reported an average of thirty cases of cheating per year. The honor code has proven far more successful: in the first year it was in place, students reported twenty-one cases of cheating; five years later, this figure had dropped to fourteen. Moreover, in a recent survey conducted by the Groveton honor council, a majority of students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without
The argument concludes that students would less likely to cheat in academics when there is an honor code in place than without it. The evidences cited to support this argument are the veracity of students, information from previous years and statistical data. However, the premises are unable to justify or strengthen the weak conclusion. The main reasons why this argument is rendered inconclusive are fallacious assumptions, authenticity of the data and wrong analogy between the two systems.
Firstly, the author said that university should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's in which children on their own consensus agree to not to cheat in exams. However, this a completely untrue statement that how can one be so sure that the children will not cheat infact when there will be no restriction they will cheat more. Also, it depends on the morality of the students whether they will cheat or not. Additionally, the author said that in this system the children will inform the teacher about the other students if they are cheating, this is true in case of upper cream students only but the lower grade students will never complain or inform about their classfellows. So, it is based on fallacious assumptions by the author hence this statement is untrue.
Secondly, the author has mentioned the data regarding the decrease in cases of cheating when there is no teacher to supervise them. Furthermore, when there is no teacher to monitor them it is also possible that the number of cheating cases are increasing but the students didn't bother to notify the teachers about it. Hence, the decrease in figures of cheating cases can be due to the corruptibility of the students.
Last but not the least, the author has mentioned the recent survey conducted by the Groveton honor council which suggested that vast majority of students preferred to less likely to cheat in a honor code than without it. At first it seems true but after the meticulous analysis it can be concluded that this survey conducted by the council can be biased too because the members can make a bias decisions as in this case there is less burden on teachers, they won't have to keep a close eye on the students. Also, the student population and type of students taken in conducting this data are also not mentioned. It can also be conclude that in this survey only lower grade students have participated so they will gain a benefit in the academics as there will be no one who can monitor them as result they can freely cheat in academics.
Hence, at the end i would like to conclude that this argument is based on fallacious assumptions and in order to prove this argument right author have to provide more valid premises and authenticity of the data. So, more information is required otherwise this argument in inconclusive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 272, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...g cases are increasing but the students didnt bother to notify the teachers about it....
^^^^^
Line 4, column 192, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ts preferred to less likely to cheat in a honor code than without it. At first it...
^
Line 5, column 19, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
... cheat in academics. Hence, at the end i would like to conclude that this argume...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2328.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 478.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87029288703 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64960285726 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.435146443515 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 732.6 705.55239521 104% => 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
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
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: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.7854234674 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.333333333 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5555555556 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.38888888889 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.177051698323 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0702464444689 0.0743258471296 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0828400610683 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0965248555621 0.128457276422 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0573112934357 0.0628817314937 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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.