The following appeared as an editorial in the student newspaper of Groveton College.
"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."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Groveton College's newspaper states that their system is better than the traditional one to prevent cheating. By doing so, it brings as evidence the fact that students reports of cheating are becoming lesser and lesser after every year and since the adoption of the honour code they have been less than the teacher's ones. This evidence, however is not enough to strengthen the first assumption, mainly because it lacks a comparison between the two systems.
Students reports can be less because they could deliberatedly decide not to follow the honor code and thus not report others cheating. In fact having less reports doesn't automatically mean less cheating. Teachers could have reported more cases because they were paying closer attention. Furthermore, the number of students' reports becomes smaller after every year, but it's not clear if this is because of the reduction of cheating, or just students agreeing on not reporting each other.
That's because of that a good evidence to support the first claim could be a transition period where students follow the honor code and there is also an additional way to check if they're cheating. It could be teachers using che traditional system, or a more technological way to check. This can make the two numbers of reports comparable and thus strengthen or weaken the newspaper's assumption.
Moreover, a survey is brought as evidence that this system works, but it is not useful since as i said before students could have agreed on not following the honor code and then they could lie at surveys in order to keep this system that advantages them.
Comments
e-rater score report
Sentence: By doing so, it brings as evidence the fact that students reports of cheating are becoming lesser and lesser after every year and since the adoption of the honour code they have been less than the teacher's ones.
Description: A noun, plural, common is not usually followed by a noun, plural, common
Suggestion: Refer to students and reports
Sentence: Students reports can be less because they could deliberatedly decide not to follow the honor code and thus not report others cheating.
Description: A noun, plural, common is not usually followed by a noun, plural, common
Suggestion: Refer to Students and reports
Sentence: Furthermore, the number of students' reports becomes smaller after every year, but it's not clear if this is because of the reduction of cheating, or just students agreeing on not reporting each other.
Description: The fragment reports becomes smaller is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace becomes with verb, base: uninflected present, imperative or infinitive
Description: The fragment or just students is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace just with adjective
Description: The token on is not usually followed by a negator
Suggestion: Refer to on and not
Sentence: That's because of that a good evidence to support the first claim could be a transition period where students follow the honor code and there is also an additional way to check if they're cheating.
Description: The token of is not usually followed by a conjunction, subordinating
Suggestion: Refer to of and that
Sentence: Moreover, a survey is brought as evidence that this system works, but it is not useful since as i said before students could have agreed on not following the honor code and then they could lie at surveys in order to keep this system that advantages them.
Description: The word i is not usually used as a noun, singular, proper
Suggestion: Refer to i
Description: The token on is not usually followed by a negator
Suggestion: Refer to on and not
Description: A noun, plural, common is not usually followed by a pronoun, personal, accusative
Suggestion: Refer to advantages and them
Sentence: By doing so, it brings as evidence the fact that students reports of cheating are becoming lesser and lesser after every year and since the adoption of the honour code they have been less than the teacher's ones.
Error: honour Suggestion: honor
Sentence: Students reports can be less because they could deliberatedly decide not to follow the honor code and thus not report others cheating.
Error: deliberatedly Suggestion: deliberately
Sentence: In fact having less reports doesn't automatically mean less cheating.
Error: doesn Suggestion: does
Sentence: It could be teachers using che traditional system, or a more technological way to check.
Error: che Suggestion: No alternate word
flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
Read a good grammar book.
Number of Paragraphs: 3 5
Minimum four paragraphs wanted
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 11 15
No. of Words: 268 350
No. of Characters: 1312 1500
No. of Different Words: 143 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.046 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.896 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.524 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 95 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 67 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 47 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 23 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.364 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.554 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.392 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.542 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 151, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun reports is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
... report others cheating. In fact having less reports doesnt automatically mean less ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 164, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...s cheating. In fact having less reports doesnt automatically mean less cheating. Teach...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
... agreeing on not reporting each other. Thats because of that a good evidence to supp...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 180, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they're
...e is also an additional way to check if theyre cheating. It could be teachers using ch...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 371, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'newspapers'' or 'newspaper's'?
Suggestion: newspapers'; newspaper's
...rable and thus strengthen or weaken the newspapers assumption. Moreover, a survey is br...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 97, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...em works, but it is not useful since as i said before students could have agreed ...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, then, thus, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 55.5748502994 47% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1336.0 2260.96107784 59% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 266.0 441.139720559 60% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02255639098 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57514132003 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 204.123752495 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.541353383459 0.468620217663 116% => OK
syllable_count: 403.2 705.55239521 57% => syllable counts are too short.
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
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 19.7664670659 56% => 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: 58.5911735659 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.454545455 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1818181818 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.192928824326 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0752121789976 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0571927030205 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11649198871 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0343740182414 0.0628817314937 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => 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: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 98.500998004 56% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => 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
---------------------
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.