Evidence suggests that academic honor codes which call for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated are far more successful than are other methods at deterring cheat | TOEFL IELTS GMAT GRE SAT ACT PTE ESL

Essay topics:

Evidence suggests that academic honor codes, which call for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated, are far more successful than are other methods at deterring cheating among students at colleges and universities. Several years ago, Groveton College adopted such a code and discontinued its old-fashioned system in which teachers closely monitored students. Under the old 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.

Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

In the passage, we are informed that academic honor codes have greatly improved Groveton College's exam status by avoiding cheating efficiently. By citing detailed comparisons on exam statuses between today and the past, the author ascribes all wholesome changes to the adaption of new honor codes. Quite convincing though such explanation appears at first glance, we cannot safely claim that it is the unique one that accounts for the fact presented in the argument. Therefore, we need to consider more explanations, which could rival with the one presented in the argument.

To start off, the author attributes the reduction of reported cheating number in the first year of honor codes adaption to the policy's efficiency. While this may be true, such situation could have sprung from other reasons as well. First of all, it is possible that students who joined in this honor codes used less strict standards in terms of the definition of cheating. Without additional information to evaluate students' defined cheating standards, it is of equal probability that cheating situation hadn't been improved so much as it had shown. Thus, the reduction of cheating number could be explained as stemming from the less strict regulation rather than the real improvement. Second, while such statistic may reflect the status of exam, we cannot determine that all of cheating behaviors had been reported by students. Instead, it is of equal probability that they tended to ignore some of their own cheating behaviors in order to gain better scores. Once the authenticity of the statistic in exams prove unwarranted, the author's underlying logic will be weakened, namely: honor code application for the first year was really working.

Furthermore, the ensuing five years' diminishing of cheating percentage could lend more support to the effectiveness of honor codes policy. However, such seemingly improvement may presumably result from other factors as well. For example, the enrollment of students in the college had been drastically increased, whic naturally led to the decline of cheating numbers. Moreover, perhaps other policies, like harsh punishments for cheating behaviors, had also been applied, which had deterred students from cheating. Without extra investigations to the status quo of the college, we cannot decide which factor finally lead to the continual decrease of percentage of cheating students. It is even likely that all of the aforementioned factors have conspired to such situation.

Last but not least, while we can acknowledge for a moment that honor codes program had really contributed to reshaping students' behaviors and making them act honestly in exams, it is reckless to claim that the majority of them told their true feeling in the recent survey, showing the beneficial effects of honor codes. For instance, they may act not according to their allegation in the survey. Or, they just wanted to keep their positive image in front of interviewers. If any of these possibilities is true, then we are reluctant to agree with the author's conclusion about the effectiveness of honor codes.

In summary, while honor codes program may have exerted great influence on student and let them follow up with the right track in exams, in the absence of sufficient information, we cannot determine whether the cheating situation had already improved or establish a causal relationship between such improvement and the efficiency of honor codes. The aforementioned situations accompanying with the adaption of honor codes is such a case that we should consider more explanations which could account for the facts given in the argument.

Votes

Essay Categories

GMAT/GRE Argument Task

Comments

Essay evaluations by e-grader

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 505, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hadn't
...ual probability that cheating situation hadnt been improved so much as it had shown. ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 706, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...eating students. It is even likely that all of the aforementioned factors have conspired t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 552, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...then we are reluctant to agree with the authors conclusion about the effectiveness of h...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, honestly, however, if, may, moreover, really, second, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, for instance, in summary, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 85.0 55.5748502994 153% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3075.0 2260.96107784 136% => OK
No of words: 578.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32006920415 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90322654589 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8465928475 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 285.0 204.123752495 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493079584775 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 945.9 705.55239521 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.4271098497 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.125 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0833333333 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.70833333333 5.70786347227 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296138482263 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0858742604726 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0448080642787 0.0701772020484 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16625179106 0.128457276422 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0471479947136 0.0628817314937 75% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 98.500998004 155% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.

Essay evaluations by e-grader

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments