Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The argument here concludes that "Applying the honour code in Groveton college by replacing the old monitoring system has resulted in decrease in number of forgery over the span of five years from the year of its implementation". The author has recommended that other university and colleges should also undertake the same system to decrease the number of cheating among students. The argument at first glance seems to be logical based on the assumptions and statics given, but giving it a second look, exploits many loop holes and gaps. Neither the premise nor is the conclusion compelling.
Author's assumption that the students who have agreed not to cheat in their academic's endaevour, would really not cheat in reality. It can be the case that they are just saying and not following it. As for example doctors and police officers who have taken pledge also get corrupted, same can be with this case. And secondly, students have the power to notify teacher that other students are cheating, it can be due to two reason, one is he/she is speaking the truth and the else part is he is trying to get other student in trouble because of any of the past experince with that student.
The author has also given some statics regarding the success of honor card in Grovetopn College. Author says that during old system there were thirty cases reported while in honor card system twenty-one cases were reported. The author has not focused on how this change occured. It can be the case that student would not report the cases of other students. And they would internally make the aggrement that not to notify the cheat to about each other. This can lead to a shocking disaster. And also the author has not given the change in number of students enrolled in the college during the span of five years. It can be the case that due to decrease in number of students in college over five years would also lead to decrease in cases of cheat.
The author has also said that other university should adopt the honor card system to decrease the number of cheating cases in their college. But the author has not presented other factors which would too affect the number of this cases. The factors like number of students, no of cheating cases, control of college over students, sincerity of students. The author has not taken the above mentioned factors into consideration.
Thus the argument needs to be reanalyzed and the above mentioned points should be considered into the argument. Had the author taken above mentioned points into consideration, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable. But whatever is presented fails to provide a holistic picture to the superfluous claims being made.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-07-07 | kaushalsorte | 60 | view |
| 2020-09-21 | Pranali11 | 68 | view |
| 2016-08-09 | sonu98sonu | 70 | view |
- Young people should be encouraged to pursue long-term, realistic goals rather than seek immediate fame and recognition.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the po 50
- Some people believe that college students should consider only their own talents and interests when choosing a field of study. Others believe that college students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field.Writ 50
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of Parson City's local newspaper."In our region of Trillura, the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend—the city-run public schools—comes from taxes that each city government c 62
- Claim: The emergence of the online "blogosphere" has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States.Reason: When anyone can publish political opinions easily, standards for covering news and political topics will inevitably 50
- Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reas 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 392, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... the number of cheating among students. The argument at first glance seems to be lo...
^^^
Line 3, column 541, Rule ID: OF_ANY_OF[1]
Message: Consider simply using 'of' instead.
Suggestion: of
...to get other student in trouble because of any of the past experince with that student. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 201, Rule ID: TOO_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'to affect'?
Suggestion: to affect
...not presented other factors which would too affect the number of this cases. The factors l...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 226, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...rs which would too affect the number of this cases. The factors like number of stude...
^^^^
Line 7, column 275, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...s. The factors like number of students, no of cheating cases, control of college o...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ntioned factors into consideration. Thus the argument needs to be reanalyzed and...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'if', 'look', 'really', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'thus', 'while', 'as for', 'for example']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.250501002004 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.190380761523 0.15541462614 122% => OK
Adjectives: 0.060120240481 0.0836205057962 72% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0440881763527 0.0520304965353 85% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0260521042084 0.0272364105082 96% => OK
Prepositions: 0.122244488978 0.125424944231 97% => OK
Participles: 0.0701402805611 0.0416121511921 169% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.55986928067 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0300601202405 0.026700313972 113% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.112224448898 0.113004496875 99% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0300601202405 0.0255425247493 118% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0160320641283 0.0127820249294 125% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2702.0 2731.13054187 99% => OK
No of words: 459.0 446.07635468 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.88671023965 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.346405228758 0.378187486979 92% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.230936819172 0.287650121315 80% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.17211328976 0.208842608468 82% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0980392156863 0.135150697306 73% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55986928067 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 207.018472906 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440087145969 0.469332199767 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.7679646362 52.1807786196 93% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.9565217391 23.2022227129 86% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7408540599 57.7814097925 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.47826087 141.986410481 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9565217391 23.2022227129 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.608695652174 0.724660767414 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 43.0502036563 51.9672348444 83% => OK
Elegance: 1.7 1.8405768891 92% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.395925311316 0.441005458295 90% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.16063956124 0.135418324435 119% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.130273528939 0.0829849096947 157% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.557333336834 0.58762219726 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.156244285778 0.147661913831 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.174321416661 0.193483328276 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0838943594268 0.0970749176394 86% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.457405838957 0.42659136922 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.118608223687 0.0774707102158 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.299792772954 0.312017818177 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0611784709077 0.0698173142475 88% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.