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.
The argument is well presented that the author argues the academic honor code system is more effective than the old monitoring system. Astonishingly plausible as the statement may sound, close scrutiny reveals it is challenged by several alternatives, which, if proved valid, will cast doubt on the credibility of the previous claim. Therefore, we are inquiring more information about the accuracy of the report, other factors that can influence cheating behaviors, and the comprehensiveness of the survey to better evaluate the argument.
To begin with, by citing the drop in the number of reported cases of cheating, the author seems to attribute the decline to the impacts of the new system. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that students are less inclined to report cheating activities in such a circumstance. Without the monitor from teachers, students may have a consensus that cheating together to earn better scores and implicitly agreeing that they will not report others to teachers. Moreover, even for those, who do not participate in misbehaviors, they may assign priority to the friendship than morality. Thus, neither do they tell the truth to educators. If this alternative has been proved correct, it will significantly hurt the validity of the statement, because the real number of cheating cases does not change, if not increase. If this guess is disproved, we can place more trust in the decrease in the cheating cases.
Granted the all cheating cases have been reported on time, it is still hasty to reach the conclusion that the new systems should receive the credit for the reluctance of cheating after Groveton adopted the new policy. As we all know, a misbehavior originates from a variety of factors. Maybe the quality of students has increased and the content has become easier during this period, thus, it is unnecessary for students to gain a higher grade via cheating. If other factors are demonstrated more efficient in correcting academic misbehaviors, the original explanation will be rendered questionable, since the new system may play a minor role, if not negative, in reducing cheating cases.
Finally, the author seems to expond the reletance of chearing found in the recent survey by the impacts of the honor code system. However, the same logic can also be applied here that we cannot a blind eye to the credibility of the report. The explanation’s validity hinges heavily on the honesty of respondents. If they fail to tell the real feelings because of potential punishments or peer pressures, the conclusion inferred from the survey is open to doubt. Moreover, the surveyed sample may be so limited that gives rise to a biased consequence. On the contrary, if the responses are real, and the survey has been conducted prudently and comprehensively, it will bolster the argument.
To summarize, as I have manifested above, it is too precipitous for the author to arrive at the conclusion that the honor code system is more effective than the old model absent addressing other possible alternatives.
- Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall stu 93
- Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 66
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes littl 49
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves 83
- The following is a recommendation from the Board of Directors of Monarch Books."We recommend that Monarch Books open a café in its store. Monarch, having been in business at the same location for more than twenty years, has a large customer base because 55
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Finally, the author seems to expond the reletance of chearing found in the recent survey by the impacts of the honor code system.
Error: reletance Suggestion: relevance
Error: chearing Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: expond Suggestion: expand
---------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- somehow duplicated to argument 1
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
Thus, all colleges and universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's in order to decrease cheating among students.
-------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 497 350
No. of Characters: 2492 1500
No. of Different Words: 243 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.722 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.014 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.822 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.954 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.857 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.287 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.491 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 188, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
...y plausible as the statement may sound, close scrutiny reveals it is challenged by several alt...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, therefore, thus, well, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2572.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 497.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17505030181 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72159896747 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97183984066 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503018108652 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 811.8 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 12.0 2.70958083832 443% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.3402681065 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.476190476 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6666666667 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.33333333333 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230799217146 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0600860908233 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0588225481894 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118866162561 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.06939396773 0.0628817314937 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 98.500998004 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.