To combat the recently reported dramatic rise in cheating among college and university students, these institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's, 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 an old-fashioned system in which students were closely monitored by teachers and an average of thirty cases of cheating per year were reported. 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 conducted by the Groveton honor council, a majority of students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without.
In this editorial, the author concludes that colleges should adopt an honor code for detecting academic cheating. To support this conclusion the author points out that the first year after switching from a monitoring system to an honor system the annual number of reported cheating incidents at Groveton College decreased from 30 to 21, and that five years later the number was only 14. The author also cites a survey in which most students indicated they would be less likely to cheat under an honor system than if they are closely monitored. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
First and foremost, the argument relies on the assumptions that Groveton students are just as capable of detecting cheating as faculty monitors and that these students are just as likely to report cheating whenever they observe it. However, without evidence to substantiate these assumptions one cannot reasonably conclude that the honor code has in fact resulted in a decline in the incidence of cheating at Groveton. Besides, common sense tells me that these assumptions are dubious at best; an impartial faculty observer is more likely to detect and report cheating than a preoccupied student under peer pressure not to report cheating among classmates.
The argument also assumes that during the five-year period all other conditions possibly affecting the reported incidence of cheating at Groveton remained unchanged. Such conditions include the number of Groveton students and the overall integrity of the student body. After five years it is entirely possible that these conditions have changed, and that the reported decrease in cheating is attributable to one or more such changes. Thus, without ruling out such alternative explanations for the reported decrease, the author cannot convince me that the honor code has in fact contributed to a decline in the incidence of cheating at Groveton.
The author's recommendation that other colleges follow Groveton's example depends on the additional assumption that Groveton is typical in ways relevant to the incidence of cheating. However, this is not necessarily the case. For instance, perhaps Groveton students are more or less likely to report cheating, or to cheat under an honor system, than typical college students. Lacking evidence that Groveton students are typical in these respects, the argument is indefensible.
Finally, the survey that the author cites might be unreliable in any of three respects. First, the author fails to assure us that the survey's respondents are representative of all college students. Second, the survey results depend on the honesty and integrity of the respondents. Third, hypothetical predictions about one's future behavior are inherently less reliable than reports of proven behavior. Lacking evidence that the survey is reliable, the author cannot reasonably rely on the survey in recommending that other colleges adopt an honor code.
In conclusion, to persuade me that other colleges should adopt an honor code in order to reduce cheating, the author must supply clear evidence that cheating at Groveton in fact decreased after the honor code was instituted there, and that it is this code that was responsible for the decrease. Finally, to better assess the usefulness of the survey I would need specific information about the survey's sampling methodology.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-28 | sksurbhi | 82 | view |
| 2019-06-06 | Sushant5386 | 50 | view |
| 2018-12-17 | Ravindra Kumar | 29 | view |
| 2016-06-02 | greessays | 75 | view |
- When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year tho 50
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 75
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 66
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Parkville Daily newspaper."Throughout the country last year, as more and more children below the age of nine participated in youth-league sports, over 40,000 of these young players suffered inju 63
- Formal educational credentials should be the most important factor in hiring employees.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the above opinion. Support your opinion with reasons and examples. 83
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 527 350
No. of Characters: 2782 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.791 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.279 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.703 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 227 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 175 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 136 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.955 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.34 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.574 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.104 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 596, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nt is unconvincing for several reasons. First and foremost, the argument relies ...
^^
Line 1, column 1255, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ot to report cheating among classmates. The argument also assumes that during th...
^^
Line 1, column 1902, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the incidence of cheating at Groveton. The authors recommendation that other co...
^^
Line 1, column 1908, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ncidence of cheating at Groveton. The authors recommendation that other colleges foll...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 2379, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...respects, the argument is indefensible. Finally, the survey that the author cite...
^^
Line 1, column 2934, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hat other colleges adopt an honor code. In conclusion, to persuade me that other...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, first, however, if, second, so, third, thus, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, more or less
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 28.8173652695 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2822.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 527.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35483870968 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76623898189 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.428842504744 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 899.1 705.55239521 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.8737993288 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.272727273 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9545454545 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.63636363636 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 5.15768463074 19% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.310512300925 0.218282227539 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0984632279239 0.0743258471296 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0713990257352 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.310512300925 0.128457276422 242% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0628817314937 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 98.500998004 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.