[i习作temp] 0910G【Try Best】第二小组 argument242 by Stephy_t [复制链接]

Stephy_t
UID：2642952

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 112
注册时间: 2009-5-21
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-6-8 20:38:26 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

没限时间做，又写长了。估计有罗嗦的地方。欢迎批评指点。在练习的时候到底该先完善质量再逐步加快速度，还是该优先考虑限时再提高质量？
In this argument, the author draws the conclusion that institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton College (GC)’s. The conclusion is based on the evidence of the declining number of cheating cases and a survey by the GC’s honor council. However, without more convincing evidence, the conclusion is indefensible—in three parts.

First of all, the author ignores the weakness exit in the honor codes system itself. The honor codes are ideally built up upon students’ personal credit without any supervision. Students who agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors don’t mean they won’t cheat in fact. What’s more, the students used to be closely monitored by teachers, when suddenly take away the pressure of supervision, their credits will face the challenge of self-regulation. It may lead to the indulging in allied cheating and the corruption of personal credit. Without considerations of these disadvantages of the honor codes, the author couldn’t hastily to advise other institutions to follow suit.

Secondly, the declining number of cheating cases doesn’t mean the improving situation of cheat. There are many possible factors contribute to the dropping number of cheating cases. Without any benefits, some student would rather do something meaningful to themselves instead of wasting time to notify their fellows. Students may build up a beneficial and interdependent relationship, allying together to help each other and make a deal not to notify. What’s more, the situation of dramatic rise in cheating mentioned at the beginning of this argument suggests the problem of colleges’ students’ credit, so the number of cheating cases provided by the students is not completely trustful. Still, the argue only compares the first year’s statistic of cheating case with the five years later’s, but there is no evidence show that the five years’ number of cheating cases are in downtrend without fluctuation. According to these possible factors, we can see the evidence are not solid enough.

Thirdly, the argument mentioned a recent survey which shows that a majority of students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without, however, according to our life experience, no one would tend to say “no” when asked by the authority if he is likely to cheat. Perhaps students would say “no” in the conduct in order to get ride of the closely supervision and take advantages of the no-supervision honor codes manner to do cheat more easily. At this point, the honor codes manner doesn’t actually reach the original purpose of improving the cheating situation.

Last but not the least, the author concludes that colleges and universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's but without considering the different qualities and ethical standards of the students between GC and other institutions. Perhaps GC has a good reputation among the same institutions and its students maintain a high credit quality, which makes the honor codes manner practical. The argument couldn’t use the covey made by GC to simply think that all the other institutions have the same situation.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, it should do further investigation of the impact of using the honor codes. And the survey should be taken in several different institutions to make sure the result objective and perusable.