According to a recent report, cheating among college and university students is on the rise. However, Groveton College has successfully reduced student cheating by adopting 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. 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. Thus, all colleges and universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's in order to decrease cheating among students.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The argument recommends that for the decrement of the cheating numbers in all colleges and universities, they should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton. However, this claim reveals examples of leap of faith and fails to mention several factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Hence, the argument is unconvincing.
First of all, the case contrasts the quantity of cheating reports by the teachers and the students. Based on this contrast, in the case which the teachers make the observation, the number of the cheating was more than the quantity of cheating by the replacement of the honor code. However, this assertion is skeptical, and some questions are unanswered. For instance, did the students are honest about their reports? Maybe, they saw their friends were cheating; yet, did not eager to report them. As a result, for the sake of this reluctant, the number of the cheating report has been declined. The argument would have been fortified if it lucidly explicated that the observation of two conditions was identical, and they students reported faithfully.
Next, the author assumes that the efficacy of the honor code is unavoidable since based on a survey; the students claimed that they are less unlikely to cheat by the honor code. In fact, there is a list of the suspicious questions about the condition of this survey. For instance, who many students participated in the study? Or what questions were asked? Perhaps the number of case studies in this survey was insufficient, which in this condition the expanding its outcomes to the other schools are abortive since the scoop of the case study did not render the actual position. Or maybe the questions were solely focused on the honor codes, and they were not asked information about the previous method of observation.
Finally, the writer posits that the honor code would be effective in whole schools. The chief reason this assumption is that the author believes whole schools are identical in entire aspects. On the contrast, it is vague and holistic surmise. The argument would have been a lot more convincing if it addressed the questions related to the schedules and examination methods of all schools. Maybe, the training method of one school was practical; in this case, the test would have been based upon the pragmatic tests. Or one school examines the students orally. Either scenario would provide an alternative explanation for this condition, which the honor code would have been ineffective.
As a result, the argument is flawed for the reasons above-mentioned and is, therefore, unpersuasive. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly answered the question about the observation's validity, the accuracy of the survey and the similarity of whole schools. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debates.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 194, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'observations'' or 'observation's'?
Suggestion: observations'; observation's
...clearly answered the question about the observations validity, the accuracy of the survey an...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'for instance', 'in fact', 'as a result', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.245210727969 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.149425287356 0.15541462614 96% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0670498084291 0.0836205057962 80% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0402298850575 0.0520304965353 77% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0268199233716 0.0272364105082 98% => OK
Prepositions: 0.124521072797 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.044061302682 0.0416121511921 106% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.82004619168 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0134099616858 0.026700313972 50% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.157088122605 0.113004496875 139% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0172413793103 0.0255425247493 68% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0114942528736 0.0127820249294 90% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2866.0 2731.13054187 105% => OK
No of words: 464.0 446.07635468 104% => OK
Chars per words: 6.17672413793 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64119157421 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.366379310345 0.378187486979 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.297413793103 0.287650121315 103% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.237068965517 0.208842608468 114% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.137931034483 0.135150697306 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82004619168 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 207.018472906 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467672413793 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 52.6139540235 52.1807786196 101% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.8461538462 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.4961596741 57.7814097925 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.230769231 141.986410481 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8461538462 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5 0.724660767414 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 47.5875331565 51.9672348444 92% => OK
Elegance: 1.91150442478 1.8405768891 104% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258002926279 0.441005458295 59% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.118820078871 0.135418324435 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.109585499696 0.0829849096947 132% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.551955117898 0.58762219726 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.198326326972 0.147661913831 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11350675412 0.193483328276 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0487834982408 0.0970749176394 50% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.60438086248 0.42659136922 142% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0669759871363 0.0774707102158 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.198496706671 0.312017818177 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0384636827852 0.0698173142475 55% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 23.0 14.657635468 157% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.