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.
With the information provided, the assumption leading to conclusion remains unfounded. This argument is well presented yet far-fetched. This argument claims that there is a great solution for cheating in the academic setting which is considerably crucial. Indeed, Groveton College has adopted an honor code, which the students are not agreeing with cheating. Hence, the conclusion is ill-founded.
The primary assumption underlying the author’s conclusion is that the new procedure is based on promise from student which is highly imperative and pivotal. Nevertheless, he fails to preclude other possibility that there is might be students give up their promises. As a matter of fact, we all know that some students forgot their promise during their exam or they take a modicum of amount of heed to their promise. Want of such prudent answers make a author assumption full of holes. So, to reinforce the argument the author should have provided information about whether they are adhere to their promise or not due to the fact the betray is greatly common in the current era without a shadow of doubt.
Furthermore, the author of the statement avers that all of College ought to adopt this approach. Inasmuch as, situation of them is disparate we cannot compare each other without a further investigation which is so highly pivotal for overgeneralize. So, to reinforce the argument the author should have provided information about detail of personality of student.
Moreover, it would be wrong to conclude that reason of Groveton College's has reduced due to sole implementing honor cod. Without considering and ruling other possible reason into to account that there is a tremendous number of measurement for preventing cheat, which the author may not be aware of such as the presence of camera, question variety and so forth. By considering this fact, we can observe that exerting honor code is not sole factor. Indeed, this event could be causing multiple reasons which are immensely pivotal. So, to reinforce the argument the author should have discussed about other approach for declining cheating.
In short, as discussed the conclusion cannot be tenable. The author of the statement should have provided information about situation other College and the presence of the manner for forestalling cheat such as increasing of the personality and so forth. On the other hand, to make a rigid conclusion is very myopic observation method. After all, feckless attempt with a fallible method could be nothing but a fool's errand.
- If people have the opportunity to get a secure job, they should take it right away rather than wait for a job that would be more satisfying 50
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear. 50
- Because the world is changing so quickly, people now are less happy or less satisfied with their lives than people were in the past. 70
- In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view. 50
- Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 328, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...opted an honor code, which the students are not agreeing with cheating. Hence, the conclusion is...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 451, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...mise. Want of such prudent answers make a author assumption full of holes. So, to...
^
Line 3, column 583, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'adhered'.
Suggestion: adhered
...ided information about whether they are adhere to their promise or not due to the fact...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 630, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...to their promise or not due to the fact the betray is greatly common in the current era wi...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 411, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'fools'' or 'fool's'?
Suggestion: fools'; fool's
... fallible method could be nothing but a fools errand.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, hence, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, well, after all, in short, such as, as a matter of fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2137.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 407.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25061425061 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49157444576 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81216355483 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498771498771 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 660.6 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.6426852724 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.1363636364 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.227241219469 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0658109970582 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0842076581221 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134822502536 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0638078022818 0.0628817314937 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.