Evidence suggests that academic honor codes, which call for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated, are far more successful than are other methods at deterring cheating among students at colleges and universities. Several years ago, Groveton College adopted such a code and discontinued its old-fashioned system in which teachers closely monitored students. Under the old 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.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The author has failed to convince us that the academic honor code in the best way of stop cheating in academic places like colleges and universities. Even if the claim may seem logical at first glance, the article lacks the concrete exemplification and illustrative information to prove this claim. The argument, as it stands, is based on questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact that renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing. In what follows, some evidences, which are necessary to admit the conclusion are expressed and elucidated.
The primary issue with the writer’s reasoning lies in his/her unsubstantiated premises. First, the author contended that what is called “Academic Honor Code” is the most effective way among other ways that have been used in the old-fashioned system. However, the question here is “how this method works?” Is there any way to understand whether the students do not circumvent their teachers and how this system works in detail? Until these processes are not become bright for readers, they cannot criticized or approved the proposed code in a good way.
Second, the author just simply reported the raw number of students; on the fisrt year, the students reported 21 cases of cheating , five years later the students reported 14 case and so on. On the other hand, the question that one may ask is that “among how many students these statistics have been reported?” It sounds more reasonable if the authors tell the aforementioned numbers per capita. As the number of student in a school might change every year these number are not a good way for deciding the effectiveness of the method. Maybe there were 100 students at the school in the first year but five years the numbers of the student have been declined to 50. Therefore, using this method not only decreased cheating but also increased five years later.
Lastly, the notion “a majority of Groveton students” shall be strengthened by a clear definition of the “majority” or by giving statistics. In mathematics any percentage above 50 percent is considered as majority of that group but in order to conclude that a code has to take place of an old method for stop cheating it has to be higher than 80 percent or so. Moreover, the author has to tell something about how this survey has been done in that school or what was the characteristics of the students whom were this study has be done on.
In conclusion, considering all the aspects discussed above, the lack in some evidences, reduces the robustness of the conclusion presented in the article. If the author includes all the additional premises, which have introduced so far in this article, his/her article would have been more thorough and convincing.
- TPO17(integrated) 80
- TPO25(independent) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement.Young people nowadays do not give enough time to help their communities. 60
- TPO18(integrated) 80
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be 50
- TPO25(integrated) 70
Sentence: Until these processes are not become bright for readers, they cannot criticized or approved the proposed code in a good way.
Description: A modal auxillary is not usually followed by a verb, past participle
Suggestion: Refer to cannot and criticized
Sentence: Second, the author just simply reported the raw number of students; on the fisrt year, the students reported 21 cases of cheating , five years later the students reported 14 case and so on.
Error: fisrt Suggestion: first
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
In GRE/GMAT, we have to accept all data or evidence are true. It is important to find out loopholes behind surveys or studies. Loopholes mean that we accept all surveys told are true, but there are some conditions applied, for example:
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...).
Let's analyze the structure of the statement:
Under the old 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. //maybe the college got better students. so they don't cheat
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. //but how is the survey if teachers closely monitored students. maybe more students will not cheat.
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 459 350
No. of Characters: 2212 1500
No. of Different Words: 229 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.629 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.819 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.75 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.95 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.704 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.282 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.52 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5