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 te

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.