The student newspaper of Groveton College states that more universities should adopt their honor code system against cheating in exams. They argued that since the implementation of Groveton’s honor code, the number of reported affairs fell yearly. This argumentation is based on several assumptions, and one of them should prove unfounded; it would weaken the conclusion significantly.
The first and the most significant assumption the author made is that the students notify other students if they suspect one of their faculty members of cheating. We have no evidence to believe this claim. The students might organize themselves and agreed on not reporting other students and could cheat much easier. It would be challenging to evaluate if this is true or not. But as long we do not have information that Groveton’s honor code prevents students from cheating, we can not assess its conclusion correctly.
Further, this system can be dangerous and could lead to a lot of mistrust among the students. In the old-fashioned way, where the teacher tried to monitor the students, the teacher could handle the situation as he/she thinks is accurate. With Groveton’s system, the teacher just gets informed of students that might have somebody seen cheating. But, there is no proof of it, and therefore it is difficult to punish the student. We would need evidence that the students only report somebody if they are cheating, and we would have to be able to exclude potential reports of students because of personal reasons.
Finally, the argument is complicated to evaluate because we have some numbers that do not show reality. The drop in the reported cases of cheating could result, as I explained above, because of better coordination of the students. To evaluate this system, we would need the numbers of the people who cheated, not only the reported ones who have not been caught. This could maybe be done by cameras and an analyzation afterward. Then the resulting numbers of the old-fashioned way and of the Groveton’s honor code could be evaluated much better.
To conclude, although the Groveton’s honor code showed a decrease in reported cases of cheating, this does not mean that the numbers dropped. We would need evidence that the students did not coordinate with each other and, therefore, just agreed to notify cheating students. Further, we would need proof to believe that the reported students within the Groveton’s system really cheated, and finally, we would need the real, absolute numbers of cheating students.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 413 350
No. of Characters: 2067 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.508 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.005 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.625 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 122 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.6 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.429 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.167 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 342, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'evaluating'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'challenge' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: evaluating
...at much easier. It would be challenging to evaluate if this is true or not. But as long we ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, may, really, so, then, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2141.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 412.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19660194175 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50530610838 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77503832985 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.466019417476 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 640.8 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 4.96107784431 282% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.7651737999 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.952380952 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.619047619 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.71428571429 5.70786347227 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.250899550362 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0855502166077 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0888351207427 0.0701772020484 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171139878263 0.128457276422 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0821510182518 0.0628817314937 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.