argument 242 美月

jessicamarineUID: 2595044

242.The following appeared as an editorial in the student newspaper of
Groveton College.

"To combat the recently reported dramatic rise in cheating among college
and university students, these institutions should adopt honor codes
similar to Groveton's, 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 an old-fashioned
system in which students were closely monitored by teachers and an average
of thirty cases of cheating per year were reported. The honor code has
proven far more successful: in the first year it was in place, students
reported twenty-one cases of cheating; five years later, this figure had
dropped to fourteen. Moreover, in a recent survey conducted by the
Groveton honor council, a majority of students said that they would be
less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without."

为解决最近上报的大学生作弊现象显著增加的问题，大学和学院应该采取和Groveton学院类似的诚信制度，该制度要求学生同意在学业中不作弊，并且当他们怀疑别人作弊的时候通知老师。Groveton的诚信制度代替了原有的学生被老师严密监视的老体制，在老体制中平均每年有30起作弊被上报。该制度被证明成功的多：在它实施的第一年，学生上报了21起作弊；五年后，这一数值下降到了14起。而且，在最近一次由Groveton诚信委员会组织的调查中，大部分学生说有了诚信制度他们更加不太可能作弊。


原文思路：解决作弊问题——推荐G的诚信制度——因为1作弊数目下降2 调查学生回答
1数涨未必情况好转【比例】，上报数目不等同于真是数目【考生串通好】
2时间先后未必因果【他因，考试难度下降，考生水平上升】
3调查值得怀疑【匿名】【调查者身份】
4方法 坏影响【诬告】
5 类比未必成功【更多诚信制度的方案】未与其他法案比较【给出比较证据】
6 Dramatic rise 事出有因 【对症下药】【考题过难】【学生心态】

In this editorial the author suggests other colleges adopting Groveton(G)’s honor codes to combat the recently reported dramatic rise in cheating. To support his statement the author cites that after taking the honor codes ,G’s reported cheating cases has fell from 21 to 14 and that most students appreciate the honor codes’ supervision function in a recent survey by G honor council. Although it seems reasonable at the first glance, further analysis reveals several logical flaws as below.

First of all the decrease in reported cheating cases does not necessarily mean fewer students cheated. It is possible that the total students number has declined during the five years, thus the cheating percentage might increase. If so, the honor is clearly not a success. Even if the percentage of reported cheating cases decline, still we cannot assure that students really cheated less. It is highly possible that without teachers’ supervision students made it a deal not to notify others. If this is the case, we have good reason to doubt the so-called success of honor codes.
Moreover, the survey by G honor council is dubious. To get an objective response the surveyor must be credible and respondents must give a candidate answer, both of which we cannot assure in this survey. It is highly possible that the G honor council has tended to make a positive result at the very beginning, or that it was a registered survey-just imagine who of the students will answer his or her college that those measures would never forbid him or her from cheating?

Even assuming students do cheat less, the author just cannot conclude that it’s the honor codes that resulted in the decrease just because the former happened before the latter. Many other factors might contribute to the decrease as well, such as the new students’ awareness has risen or that the exams were much easier than before, making the risky cheating a less worthy choice. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer just cannot convince me of the honor codes’ effective supervision function.
In asserting that other college should take similar measures like G, the arguer is actually committing a false analogy. As we all know, different level colleges have distinct academic atmosphere. Though the honor codes won a success in G, it might meet an embarrassment in face of other more persistent cheaters in other universities.
Finally, we should probe in depth of why the reported cheating cases increased dramatically. Anyway, we should be extremely careful about students’ academic honesty. Maybe, some problems have appeared in the students’ attitude, or the exam style is outdated. In any of these cases, more measures rather than imitating others only is needed.
To sum up, the author’s suggestion is open to doubt. To better support his statement, the arguer must provide us sound evidence that the survey results is credible and that the total cheating percentage has truly inclined.
Evidence that no other factors but the honor codes resulted in the decline is also needed. To better access the argument we would also need to know the condition in other universities, whether they are similar enough with G and what has caused the cheating increase at all.

逆风的船UID: 2724552

In this editorial the author suggests other colleges adopting Groveton(G)’s honor codes to combat the recently reported dramatic rise in cheating. To support his statement the author cites that after taking the honor codes(undertaking the honor code method/regulation), G’s reported cheating cases has fell from 21 to 14 and that most students appreciate the honor codes’ supervision function in a recent survey by G honor council(a recent survey performed by G honor council indicated most students do not have desire to cheat). Although it seems reasonable at the first glance, further analysis reveals several logical flaws as below.

First of all the decrease in reported cheating cases does not necessarily mean fewer students cheated. It is (entirely) possible that the total students number (the total number of the students) has declined during the five years, thus (but) the cheating percentage might increase. If so, the honor is clearly not a success. Even if the percentage of reported cheating cases decline (declined), still we cannot assure (can not be assured) that students really cheated less. It is highly possible that without teachers’ supervision students made it a deal not to notify others. If this is the case, we have good reason to doubt the so-called success of the honor codes.
Moreover, the survey by G honor council is dubious (pale to be served as an evidence of the success of the honor codes). To get an objective response the surveyor must be credible and respondents must give a candidate answer, both of which we cannot assure (can not be assured) in this survey. It is highly possible that the G honor council has tended to make a positive result at the very beginning, or that it was a registered survey-just imagine who of the students (which reasonable students) will answer his or her college that those measures would never forbid him or her from cheating?

Even assuming students do cheat less, the author just cannot conclude that it’s the honor codes that resulted in the decrease just because the former happened before the latter. Many other factors might contribute to the decrease as well, such as the new students’ awareness has risen or that the exams were much easier than before, making the risky cheating became a less worthy choice. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer just cannot convince me of the honor codes’ effective supervision function.
In asserting that other college should take similar measures like G, the arguer is actually committing a false analogy. As we all know, different level colleges (colleges of different level) have distinct academic atmosphere. Though the honor codes won a success in G, it might meet an embarrassment in face of other more persistent cheaters in other universities.
Finally, we should probe in depth of why the reported cheating cases increased dramatically (profoundly to the direct reason behind the dramatic increase of the cheating cases among colledge students). Anyway, we should be extremely careful about students’ academic honesty. Maybe, some problems have appeared in the students’ attitude, or the exam style is outdated. In any of these cases, more measures rather than imitating others only is needed （advisable）.
To sum up, the author’s suggestion is open to doubt. To better support his statement, the arguer must provide us sound evidence that the survey results is credible and that the total cheating percentage has truly inclined.
Evidence that no other factors but the honor codes resulted in the decline is also needed. To better access the argument we would also need to know the condition in other universities, whether they are similar enough with ( similar 后面应该用to 吧) G and what has caused
括号前面的部分是我觉得由欠缺的部分，红字是用的不错的地方。组长把错误找的很全。由于我上周写的是这周的作业，写错了，这一篇我没有写，但是我觉得我肯定不如组长错误找的全。还是短练啊。。。。转成网页就没有标记了。