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 of the argument caviled that because a number of successes has been reported on Groveton’s adoption of a newing techniques that wanes cheating, this method should be implemented in other institutions. While this might help ebb cheating in other universities, the argument does not provide sufficient evidence to support this; lack of explanation to alternative causes, questionable assumption, and the use of vague terms all serves to vitiate the altercation’s conclusion.
The author’s citation of the means’ success in the first five-year period has failed to take into consideration, other causes that could have led to the decrease in students cheating. We do not know if the method was tested on the same set of students that was previously monitored by teachers. Or perhaps this novel technique was tested on new intakes. Other factors that could have also led to decrease in cheating include supplanting of chump teachers, amelioration of heuristic style, and alteration of teaching curriculum. All these could have led to students gaining more comprehension of the subjects. Hence, leading to decline in cheating.
Apart from the author failing to consider other factors that could lead to decrease in cheating, the assumption that the new style would work for other schools also undermines the author’s conclusion. There was no evidence to show that other schools do not already possess techniques that are more efficacious than this. Additionally, some factors might have allowed this new method to work for Groveton University. Factors such as cooperation among students and unity between student and school superintendents. This factors might not be present in other schools. Thus, thwarting the success of this method when implemented in other schools.
However, to validate this argument, the author needs to answer the following questions: what are other possible factors that led to the decrease in cheating rate? Were this factors that led to this decreases present in previous years? Was there any change in the teaching method, characteristics of student or teaching curriculum that could have led to decrease in cheating? Additionally, is the method feasible in other universities? Do they have other meethods that could be better than this? Are there factors that would impede the success of this new style in other institutions? Without answers to these questions, the conclusion will surely be invalid.
In summary, the author of the argument contended that because a new style of reducing cheating worked for Groveton University, the method should be adopted in other schools. While this might seem to be of benefit to other universities, the author’s argument was based on unjustifiable assumption, negletion of other possible factors, and use of vague terms which all saps the author’s conclusion. Therefore, it is recommended that the author provide answers to all underlying questions for this argument to maintain its validity.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-22 | swetha_14r | 68 | view |
| 2023-02-26 | 宋致遠 | 60 | view |
| 2023-01-21 | jimHsu | 54 | view |
| 2022-12-26 | rohan.apte | 72 | view |
| 2022-09-05 | poiuy23567 | 66 | view |
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of marketing at Dura Sock Inc A recent study of our customers suggests that our company is wasting the money it spends on its patented Endure manufacturing process which ensures that our socks are s 60
- Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today 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 developing and supportin 58
- The following memo was published by the Welzaton City Commission A recent nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a safety helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets whe 50
- Educators should base their assessment of students learning not on students grasp of facts but on the ability to explain the ideas trends and concepts that those facts illustrate Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disag 65
- The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds 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 de 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 466 350
No. of Characters: 2449 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.646 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.255 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.808 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 154 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 107 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.417 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.508 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.507 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, if, so, therefore, thus, while, apart from, in summary, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2528.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 466.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42489270386 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98023476584 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452789699571 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 757.8 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 63.0078809004 57.8364921388 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.333333333 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4166666667 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.83333333333 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.127959930039 0.218282227539 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0460011254465 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0494198241223 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0860198700315 0.128457276422 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0118866164701 0.0628817314937 19% => 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: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.