Evidence suggests that academic honor codes, which call for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated, are far more successful than are other methods at deterring che

The author of the statement above believes that by using an honor code, the students’ cheats would be significantly reduced. This conclusion is based on the comparison between the number of reports of cheating before and after using such an honor code in the Groveton College; the reports of cheating are seemingly in a decline. Furthermore, to support the statement the author appeals to a survey whose respondents, students, said that they would less likely to cheat with an honor code. As the statement lacks the necessary evidences to rule out other explanation, its equivalent conditions give rise to more than one possible explanation.

First, the reported cases of cheats are reduced. This fact does not guarantee that the cheating instances are reduced in the Groveton College. It is possible that students’ method for cheating is improved so that can get away with cheats. Another possible explanation is that students might connive at the cheating of their peers and did not report them to the faculty. Moreover, the students in the exams might not have enough time to both take the exam and monitor the others not to involve in cheating. Furthermore, after introducing the honor code nearly a half of a decade is passed, it is highly possible that alternative specifications in the exams have made it hard to cheat.

Secondly, the author cites a survey in which majority of the students said that with such an honor code it would be less probable to cheat. The student might simply lie. It is obviously justifiable for the ease of taking their exams, they have lied to facilitate the gaining of the grades by cheating lest they fail in a hard exam. Even assuming the genuineness of the responses of the majority of students in the survey, the author’s conclusion at best would be the fallacy of appealing to the majority. Yet there are other students who think differently and should consider their reasons.

Finally, assuming we give credence to the authors’ previous explanations of the honor code, still by citing only one college the efficiency of the method may not be extended to other colleges. It is possible that the Groveton College is a small college that cheating can be checked more easily. The students might morally be more loyal to the code than other places, or the field of learning in the Groveton College might be those that cheating does not often take place in them, like arts or practical fields.

In short, the argument is not conducive to a firm explanation. As there are lots of equivocal conditions, the argument is open to be explained in many different ways. Hence, the author's conclusion remains untenable unless the other explanations are ruled out.