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
The argument concludes that students would less likely to cheat in academics when there is an honour code in place than without it. The evidences cited to support this argument are the veracity of students, information from previous years and statistical data. However, the premises are unable to justify or strengthen the weak conclusion. The main reasons why this argument is rendered inconclusive are fallacious assumptions, authenticity of the data and wrong analogy between the two systems.
Firstly, the author said that university should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's in which children on their own consesus agree to not to cheat in exams. However, this a completely untrue stratement that how can one be so sure that the children will not cheat infact when there will be no restriction they will cheat more. Also, it dpends on the morality of the students whether they will cheat or not. Additionally, the author said that in this system the children will inform the teacher about the other students if they are cheating, this is true in case of upper cream students only but the lower grade students will never complain or inform about their classfellows. So, it is based on fallacious asssumptions by the author hence this statement is untrue.
Secondly, the author has mentioned the data regarding the decrease in cases of cheating when there is no teacher to supervise them. Furthermore, when there is no teacher to monitor them it is also possible that the number of cheating cases are increasing but the students didn't bother to notify the teachers about it. Hence, the decrease in figures of cheating cases can be due to the corruptibility of the students.
Last but not the least, the author has mentioned the recent survey conducted by the Groveton honor council which suggested that vast majority of students prefered to less likely to cheat in a honor code than without it. At first it seems true but after the meticulous analysis it can be concluded that this survey conducted by the council can be biased too because the members can make a bias decisions as in this case there is less burden on teachers, they won't have to keep a close eye on the students. Also, the student population and type of students traken in conducting this data are also not mentioned. It can also be conclude that in this survey only lower grade students have participated so they will gain a benefit in the academics as there will be no one who can monitor them as reult they can freely cheat in academics.
Hence, at the end i would like to conclude that this argument is based on fallacious assumptions and in order to prove this argument right author have to provide more valid premises and authenticity of the data. So, more information is required otherwise this argument in inconclusive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 272, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...g cases are increasing but the students didnt bother to notify the teachers about it....
^^^^^
Line 4, column 191, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...nts prefered to less likely to cheat in a honor code than without it. At first it...
^
Line 5, column 19, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
... cheat in academics. Hence, at the end i would like to conclude that this argume...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2328.0 2235.4752809 104% => OK
No of words: 478.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87029288703 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65197051312 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 215.323595506 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441422594142 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 730.8 704.065955056 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.6188496021 60.3974514979 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.333333333 118.986275619 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5555555556 23.4991977007 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.38888888889 5.21951772744 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174378304681 0.243740707755 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0686434560958 0.0831039109588 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0814874139949 0.0758088955206 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0940873720807 0.150359130593 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0583397529317 0.0667264976115 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.8420337079 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 100.480337079 100% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.