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, C 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 passage supports the idea that honor codes are a more effective way than others to fight classroom cheating. Although, it provides Groveton College as a particular example when after applying the codes, the students reported fewer cases of cheating; this assumption has some logical flaws.
First of all, the text presents the idea that this method is better than others, though only two means are actually compared. We can conclude from reading the passage that honor codes are more successful than professors’ monitoring in classes, but this fact does not guarantee that other methods are less effective. For instance, using more strict measures for test takers is better solution in this case. Universities and colleges may use monitoring systems and cameras for this purpose. Thus, it can be more fruitful than honor codes.
Moreover, it is unclear what assumptions the success of honor codes is based on. Was it proved that honor codes had turned the problem of students’ cheating around? To conclude more accurate research is needed. For example, we cannot rely on the result at Groveton College, because it might have been an exceptional case. Otherwise, the state of things at other universities has become worse after applying honor codes. Since no information was presented in the text, we can easily suspect that honor codes are not an omnipresent way to fight classroom cheating at all universities.
Even the decreasing numbers of cheating students at Groveton College does not prove that honor codes are a great measure against cheaters. Since reporting about these cases is on students’ schedulers, there is a high possibility that they can use honor codes for their purposes. In reality, the number of cheating students might have increased, but students prefer to hide most of the occurred cases. They take their advantages, because they can get higher marks more easily without professors’ controlling. Thus, we cannot rely on the presented numbers as a strong argument.
To sum up, based on the provided assumptions in the essay, honor codes might have not been better comparing to other methods to fight cheating cases among students.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 544, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... can be more fruitful than honor codes. Moreover, it is unclear what assumptions...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, may, moreover, so, thus, as for, for example, for instance, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => 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: 1843.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 350.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26571428571 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75002782917 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525714285714 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 569.7 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.3322461359 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.0 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4210526316 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52631578947 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.259355243054 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0850245372586 0.0743258471296 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0416258250406 0.0701772020484 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151615469002 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0258598741092 0.0628817314937 41% => 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: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.