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.
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 author claims that colleges and universities should have an honor system similar to Groveton’s to decrease cheating among students. This argument fails to provide adequate information to prove the correlation between implementing an honor system to reduce cheating among students. Primarily, the argument is flawed because it is based on assumed cause and effect that there were no other factors reducing cheating, making the argument invalid.
First of all, it is an assumed cause and effect to claim the honor code is the only factor that affects cheating among students. This is an unwarranted claim and does not demonstrate a clear relationship. What if there were other factors that affected the reduction of students cheating in class? Factors may include students finding new ways to cheat, making it difficult to catch them. This possibility will reduce students being reported for cheating. If the argument had provided evidence that the honor code is the only correlation with reducing cheating, then it would have been more credible.
More significantly, it is an assumption that students will report to faculty if their classmates are cheating. What if the students do not report it? This will reduce the rate of students being reported for cheating. The students may not report it because they are concentrating on their own work and are not actively monitoring their classmates. The argument’s assumption would be stronger if there is valid evidence showing all cases of cheating were indeed reported by the students.
Finally, the claims are based on surveys that may have fabricated answers. For example, what if the respondent lied in the survey to avoid presenting themselves in an unfavorable manner? Students would not want to blatantly say that they would cheat on an exam. Unless the survey accurately represents the parameter, it does not support the author’s claim.
Overall, the argument is unconvincing because it is based on assumed cause and effect that there were no other factors reducing cheating, making the argument invalid. Multiple factors like new cheating methods, students not actively searching for cheaters, and fabricated survey.
- 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 en 63
- Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In dev 58
- 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 en 63
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 344 350
No. of Characters: 1794 1500
No. of Different Words: 152 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.307 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.215 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.656 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.418 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.351 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.546 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ating, making the argument invalid. First of all, it is an assumed cause and...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n it would have been more credible. More significantly, it is an assumption ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 162, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an unfavorable manner" with adverb for "unfavorable"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...e survey to avoid presenting themselves in an unfavorable manner? Students would not want to blatantly s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 363, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es not support the author's claim. Overall, the argument is unconvincing be...
^^^^^^^
Line 16, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ers, and fabricated survey.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, if, may, then, for example, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 55.5748502994 54% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1874.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 344.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4476744186 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30665032142 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84417630111 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 204.123752495 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.447674418605 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 567.9 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.2251330729 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.7 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.8 5.70786347227 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 8.20758483034 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 18.0 6.88822355289 261% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.34384735318 0.218282227539 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120169521559 0.0743258471296 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0766045913599 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.200278528263 0.128457276422 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0717739374672 0.0628817314937 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.03 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.