Several years ago, Groveton College adopted an honor code, 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 a 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, a majority of Groveton students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without. Such evidence suggests that all colleges and universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's. This change is sure to result in a dramatic decline in cheating among college students.
The author of this argument champions the new honor code at Groveton College. As evidence, the author cites that the total cases of cheating reported has dropped since the code was enacted. In addition, the author cites a survey in which students claimed that they are less likely to cheat with the code in place than under the previous system. As a result, the author suggests that this code be implemented in other colleges. However, before this recommendation should be implemented, several outstanding questions must be addressed.
First and foremost, the author describes how the number of cases of cheating dropped from thirty to twenty-one the first year after the code was put into effect. However, how big was the total class size the second year? Proportionally, this figure of twenty-one may represent the same portion of the new class as the previous figure of thirty did for the previous class, as the new year’s class may be of a significantly bigger size. Without this information of actual percentages of the classes caught cheating, the figures provided are too insignificant to bolster the author’s argument.
Compounding on this point, further figures must be provided to strengthen the data cited by the author. He/she states that cases of cheating declined in the first year the policy was in effect and the fifth year, but what about the years in between? Two out of five years only describes a minority of the years the program was in effect, not the majority, These two successful years may represent an overly optimistic minority, whereas the other years may have represented complete failures in which the cases of cheating actually increased. The data of these missing years is therefore integral to the author’s argument, and must be included in order for the author’s thesis to be justified.
Finally, the author relies heavily on a survey conducted among the students of Groveton, in which they claim the honor code is more effective at guarding against cheating. However, how inclined are to take their word for it? It is in the fraternal spirit of students to help each other as opposed to helping their professors. Students may be colluding and neglecting to mention cases of cheating when they see it. Simply relying on the fact that they say cheating has decreased would be a hasty decision. Instead, the provided survey should be supplemented with a similar survey of the teachers, in which they report the effectiveness of the new code according to their observations. Simply relying on the observations of the students leaves the author’s weak.
Conclusively, the author’s argument that the new honor code at Groveton College proves specious. While the author cites figures regarding how the number of cheating cases has declined the year following its enactment as well as five years after, this evidence must be supported with the percent of the class caught cheating, not just total cases since the class size may have increased and cases may be proportionally the same. In addition, the author only cites the case numbers from two years, not from each of the five years. In order for these figures to be useful supporting data, figures from the additional years must be included. Finally, it is not sufficient to rely on a survey conducted among students regarding the code’s effectiveness when it is in their best interests to support a code in which it is easier for cheating to go unreported. Instead, the author should further support this claim with another survey among teachers. In summary, the author’s argument will only prove valid once these issues are addressed and resolved.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 604 350
No. of Characters: 2965 1500
No. of Different Words: 235 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.957 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.909 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.586 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 213 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 160 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 117 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.37 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.199 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.593 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.316 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, so, then, therefore, well, whereas, while, in addition, in summary, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 90.0 55.5748502994 162% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3053.0 2260.96107784 135% => OK
No of words: 603.0 441.139720559 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06301824212 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9554069778 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71505989053 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.421227197347 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 927.9 705.55239521 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.9198915257 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.074074074 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3333333333 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.88888888889 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.240964540806 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0792519692168 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0676586364899 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161904475541 0.128457276422 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0660388427384 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 98.500998004 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.