"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 author concluded that honor codes should be used in universities to minimize the cheating among students. To support this argument the author has provide various evidences which at first sight seem to appear bolster the argument but meticulously otherwise. The author has made this conclusion based on the decline in cheating cases in groveton's university by using honor codes. But this evidence was not sufficient to support the author's conclusion due to following reasons;
Firstly, the author said that use of honor's code in groveton's university. He supported this by providing the data that in first year number of cheating cases were twenty and this figure reduced to fourteen five years later. However, the number of students on which survey was conducted not given which leads to the loss of authenticity of data. And it is not true that if one method has worked well in one university must also do the same in others because situations differ from one university to another. It may be plausible that number of students giving exams has decreased than number of cheating cases will automatically drop.
Secondly, he said that by using honor code students complain to the teachers about the students who are doing cheating. It is a totally biased process as it may be possible that students might complaint only about their competents and not about friends.And we are not sure that students compliant truely or not. Thus thus assumption making the conclusion weak.
Last but not the least, the author stated that students said that according to survey conducted by graveton honor council, students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without. However the number of students on which survey was conducted not provided and it may be possible that students on which survey was conducted do not cheat. Moreover, the ethical and moral values of students differ, every student is not likely to keep the oath.
To sum up the author's conclusion based on totally fallacious premises, on the basis of which one cannot conclude that. In order to make the conclusion stronger the author should have to provide more verifiable data as such the number of students on which survey was conducted, decrease in the cheating case,etc which will bolster the argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 151, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'provided'.
Suggestion: provided
...To support this argument the author has provide various evidences which at first sight ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 435, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...dence was not sufficient to support the authors conclusion due to following reasons; ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 460, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to support the authors conclusion due to following reasons; Firstly, the author ...
^^
Line 2, column 62, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...aid that use of honors code in grovetons university. He supported this by providi...
^^
Line 3, column 52, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e said that by using honor code students complain to the teachers about the stude...
^^
Line 3, column 255, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: And
... their competents and not about friends.And we are not sure that students compliant...
^^^
Line 3, column 314, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: Thus
... that students compliant truely or not. Thus thus assumption making the conclusion weak. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 314, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... that students compliant truely or not. Thus thus assumption making the conclusion w...
^^^^
Line 4, column 220, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...h an honor code in place than without. However the number of students on which survey ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 15, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...likely to keep the oath. To sum up the authors conclusion based on totally fallacious ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 306, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , etc
...conducted, decrease in the cheating case,etc which will bolster the argument.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1920.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 384.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4267276788 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54021474923 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.484375 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 589.5 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.4144273255 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.0 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 5.70786347227 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 5.25449101796 209% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192114408288 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0755516605229 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0570973222772 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115498760482 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0250551549017 0.0628817314937 40% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: 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.