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.
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 author concludes that all colleges and universities should implement honor codes like that of Groventon’s. He supports his assertion by citing the fact that there have been a reduction in reported cases of cheating since the implementation of the policy. Whilst this argument may seem plausible closer inspection reveals that it is based on assumption which lack sufficient evidence upon which to stand. As a result there are many question s that must be answered.
Firstly, the author assumes that because the honor code has worked for Groventon that it will work just as well for all colleges and universities. Are all universities similar to Groventon? Are Groventon students representative of students of all universities? These are important questions to address. If either the Groventon environment or student body differ from that of other universities, one will not be able to make accurate comparisons between Groventon and other schools and the honor system may instead of the opposite effect than that intended. As the old saying goes, “one mans meat is another man’s poison.” Thus to strengthen his argument the author must provide evidence to show that Groventon’s student body is representative of students throughout the nation.
Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that Groventon’s honor code reduced incidents of cheating in the first place, as other variables may be responsible for the observed phenomena. For example, are reports of cheating accurate? Who is to say that these trends accurately depict the cheating situation in Groventon? If these figures have not been accurately reported (due to laziness or incentive to buffer Groventon’s reputation) the honor code may not necessarily be responsible for the reduction in cheating as there may not be a reduction in the first place. Thus to strengthen his argument, the author must provide evidence to show that the reported figures are from a reputable source and can be trusted.
Lastly, the argument suffers from a lack of quantification as there is no mention of exactly how many Groventon students believe that they are less likely to cheat with an honor code in place. Even if the majority of students do in fact feel this way, “how much is the majority”? If the majority (those who will adhere to the honor code) is not significantly greater than the minority, then implementing the honor code may not have a long lasting effect amongst Groventon students and neither benefit Groventon nor any other college. Thus ,to strengthen his argument, the author must show that students who believe that they will adhere to the code significantly outweigh those who believe they will not.
In conclusion, there is not enough evidence to support a claim as bold as that of the author’s as key elements of the discussion have been left out. One must have knowledge of all aspects of a situation before statements can be made. Unless the author can address these key issues the argument is more of wishful thinking as opposed to one that can yield real world results for colleges and universities.
- A recently issued twenty-year study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia investigated the possible therapeutic effect of consuming salicylates. Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. 40
- Pirouettes Ballet School is the clear choice for any child. Of all the dance schools in Elmtown, Pirouettes has the most intensive program, and our teachers have danced in the most prestigious ballet companies all over the world. Many of our students have 50
- The following appeared in a memo from the owner of a chain of cheese stores located throughout the United States."For many years all the stores in our chain have stocked a wide variety of both domestic and imported cheeses. Last year, however, all of the 70
- The following appeared in a business magazine."As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna, the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing. Promofoods concluded 50
- The president of Grove College has recommended that the college abandon its century-old tradition of all-female education and begin admitting men. Pointing to other all-female colleges that experienced an increase in applications after adopting coeducatio 70
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not exactly
argument 3 -- not exactly
--------------------
flaws:
In GRE, we have to accept all data or evidence are true. It is important to find out loopholes behind surveys or studies. Loopholes mean that we accept all surveys told are true, but there are some conditions applied, for example:
It works for time A (10 years ago), but it doesn't mean it works for time B (nowadays).
It works for location A (a city, community, nation), but it doesn't mean it works for location B (another city, community, nation).
It works for people A (a manager), but it doesn't mean it works for people B (a worker).
It works for event A (one event, project... ), but it doesn't mean it works for event B (another event, project...).
---------------------
for example, for the argument 2:
'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.'
your ask: are reports of cheating accurate? Who is to say that these trends accurately depict the cheating situation in Groventon?
We have to accept the data is accurate, from 21 cheating to 14 cheating. But we can ask: whether the honor code or other factors caused the decline?
------------------
in the argument 3:
You ask: exactly how many Groventon students believe? here is not the loophole. It doesn't matter the exact number. It could be 100, or 1000, or 10,000, any way, a majority of students.
The loophole of the survey is that, it just has the result of survey for honor code, we suppose 'a majority of Groveton students' is 85% of total students, the survey didn't show how is the result of survey when 'teachers closely monitored students.', maybe 98% students will not cheat.
------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 505 350
No. of Characters: 2519 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.74 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.988 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.767 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 180 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 147 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 107 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.955 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.656 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.306 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.516 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5