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 che

The author implicates that honor codes are more successful to deter cheating among students at colleges and universities based on a recent survey and a consistent drop of cheating in Groveton College. Alternative explanations might challenge the proposed explanations, indicating that the argument might be untenable.

Firstly, an alternative explanation exists when the author interprets that cheating has decreased from 21 to 14 times during the past five years when honor codes began to be implemented. In particular, it might be possible that students showed more proficiency and invested more dedication in preparing examinations, which caused fewer cases of cheating. Or, the examinations become more and more easy to be designed, and students did not necessarily cheat for higher grades. If the possible scenarios are true, the author’s explanation that the honor code is instrumental for students to diminish cheating might is indefensible.

Secondly, another alternative explanation can be that recent survey does not show the facticity of the situation for cheating in Groveton college. The reason why alternatives could question the validity is that students involved in the survey can veil the truth about cheating. Generally speaking, if students found others who were cheating during the academic endeavors and chose not to say it out, the explanation assumed by the author might be implausible. A majority of students constitutes sixty percent in all students in Groveton College or above ninety percent, which might suspect the representative of the sampled students. Another explanation might be sixty percent of students who participated in this survey, which might show that the honor code might be not efficacious to dwindle cheating.

Speculating that honor code can successfully minify the number of cheatings, arguing whether the imitation can feasibly work in other colleges and universities should have more alternative explanations. For example, teachers strong object to enforcement of the honor code because this policy should need self-discipline of students. If they find that students are less self-disciplined and always unveil the information of cheatings among others, this action would jeopardize students’ learning and fail to build trustworthiness and forthrightness. Therefore, only by investigating more schools and more teachers’ attitudes towards the honor code, can the readers be more persuasive to believe the feasibility.

In conclusion, although in every college or university, teachers and educational experts intend to optimize the pedagogical way to optimize students’ performances, they should ponder alternative explanations to vindicate efficiency and practicality of the honor code. Had the author input these possibilities, the author’s opinion might have been more shining.

Votes
Average: 7.2 (3 votes)
Essay Categories

Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, in particular

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2449.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 419.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.84486873508 5.12650576532 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52432199235 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30420953489 2.78398813304 119% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520286396181 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 765.0 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.8638425718 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.058823529 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6470588235 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52941176471 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.204962308631 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0748316625777 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0444961399302 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12177035781 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0274881409709 0.0628817314937 44% => 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: 18.4 14.3799401198 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 48.3550499002 62% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.1628742515 181% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.89 12.5979740519 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.65 8.32208582834 116% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 12.3882235529 129% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.

argument 1 -- OK

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- not exactly. maybe a wrong essay topic.
--------------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 419 350
No. of Characters: 2365 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.524 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.644 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.109 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 183 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 123 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.647 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.851 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.373 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.589 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5