Argument242 我的第一篇A 请留链互拍

manadUID：2244611

在没有限时的情况下写的，请大家帮忙改改，狠狠得提意见！
谢谢大家了
A 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."
=============================================================
1 上报作弊率不是实际作弊人数的直接关系，上报少不一定就是少作弊
2 制度只是让作弊行为可以减少的一个影响因素，但还有其它可能更为重要的因素
3 即使上面两条都正确，根据作者指出的证据也不能证明G的honor codes有效
4 就算G的有效，也不能保证G的codes也同样对其他大学有作用
================================================================
This editorial recommends that the institutions like colleges and university should adopt honor codes similar to Goventon(G)'s to reduce the crazy increase of the reported cheating. To support this recommendation, the author points out that the number of reported cheating in G's is less than before, he/she also points out that the students in G's said, according to the recent survey, that they would not cheat anymore with the honor codes. The recommendation sounds reasonable firstly, however, it bases on several mistake assumptions and unbelievable evidences.

Firstly, the author regards, by mistake, that the number of cheating reports directly shows how many students cheat, but actually there is no such explicit relationship between these two. In real world, no matter who is monitoring in their academic endeavors, the reason why many students still cheat without obeying the codes is the fact that not all of them will be caught by the monitor, such as teachers and other students. Therefore, the majority of them will take a gamble on their luckiness or so-called "skills", prevent form being seen cheating. If they succeed to cheat in an examination, for example, the monitor will not report for not attentioning the cheating act. So, it is hard to say the more reported means the more cheating and the less reported means the less cheating.

Moreover, as for the author, the codes contribute to the dramatically rise in cheating reports, therefore, the most efficient way to handle this manner is to change another well-done codes, like the honor codes. Perhaps codes are the part of increasing reports, whereas there are other reasons, maybe more significant, cause this phenomena as students’ attitude upon cheating. If students consider cheating as just a way for obtaining a higher grade rather than a terrible problem in the reason that the lesson they learnt is too difficult and useless to spend much time on it, they will still do not really obey the honor codes. So, making students know the dangerous effect on cheating, along with the help of codes will probably the better way to decrease cheating in academic endeavors.

Even if cheating correlates the number of reports and the better codes do make help, there is no adequate evidence to prove that the G’s honor codes are successful. In this argument, the author pointed out the number of G's cheating is less reported by students than by teachers and also reduces in the past five years with the honor codes, it does not mean that less students cheat than before, nevertheless, the real fact maybe that students do not report though they see a cheating act.
In addition, the recent survey mentioned in the argument also has nothing to help testify the success of the honor codes. According to the survey, though the students demonstrate that it is less impossible for them to cheat since the honor codes, what they say is not usually equal with what they do. Since the survey do not show the investigation on the real acts in the situation the students are taking the academic endeavors, it is hard to say the honor codes can do a good work.

Finally, the honor codes similar to G's may not adapted to other colleges or universities, even though the codes are proved to be successful, is just a typical one so that the honor codes cannot be utilized to other institutions. Honesty is most important to the honor codes. The old-fashioned codes calls teacher's responsibilities, by contrast, the honor ones are controlled by students. So if other institutions’ students take much more concerns on the grade they get, obviously, they will not report who have cheated because all of them do the same way. Therefore, using the honor codes similar to G's does no benefits to other institutions.

In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. To make the argument more convincing, the author should have a more complete understanding about how to reduce cheating and the value of the codes preventing students form cheating. Moreover, the author should provide more useful information, especially the information linked to the survey, to strongly prove the author’s recommendation.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-3-20 08:52 编辑 ]

iq28UID：2152875

This editorial recommends that the institutions like colleges and university should adopt honor codes similar to Goventon(G)'s to reduce the crazy increase of the reported cheating. To support this recommendation, the author points out that the number of reported cheating in G's is less than before, he/she also points out that the students in G's said, according to the recent survey, that they would not cheat anymore (偷换概念了.对照原文看看作者是不是这么说的) with the honor codes. The recommendation sounds reasonable firstly, however, it bases on several mistake assumptions and unbelievable evidences.

Firstly, the author regards, by mistake, that the number of cheating reports directly shows how many students cheat, but actually there is no such explicit relationship between these two. (红字很明晰,紫字糟糕.explicit relationship用得太玄了.两者不应该说是没有explicit relationship,就是应该说没有等价关系)In real world, no matter who is monitoring in their academic endeavors, the reason why many students still cheat without obeying the codes (罗唆) is the fact that not all of them will be caught by the monitor, such as teachers and other students. Therefore, the majority of them will take a gamble on their luckiness or so-called "skills", prevent form being seen cheating. If they succeed to cheat in an examination, for example, the monitor will not report for not attentioning the cheating act. (在issue中风行的beat around the bush在argument中重现江湖呵呵.你要论证的是报告人数不等于真是人数,然而大量的篇幅却在说由于不会都被抓到所以学生会作弊.看看是不是跑掉了) So, it is hard to say the more reported means the more cheating and the less reported means the less cheating.
(打击面过广.需要驳斥的是采取荣誉制度这种建议,所以只要攻击新制度下的作弊率下降不等于作弊人数减少就可以了,没有必要连着以前的数据一起攻击.如果是攻击现在的数据不代表真是人数,那批驳的重点应该放在现行方法相对于原先方法的缺陷.比如学生没有老师那么看得准,学生看到了也不报告.等等.)
(看了第二遍,觉得你这样攻击也是可以的.先说报告不等于真实人数,从根基上攻击;再说新方法的报告下降不代表有效.思路可行.不过考场上可能没有那么多时间让你安排这么细的攻击)


Moreover, as for the author, the codes contribute to the dramatically rise in cheating reports, (制度对于作弊报告上升有贡献???) therefore, the most efficient way to handle this manner is to change another well-done codes, like the honor codes. (没看懂) Perhaps codes are the part of increasing reports, (不知道你要表达什么意思.) whereas there are other reasons, maybe more significant, (没有说到是哪些reasons.空洞) cause this phenomena as students’ attitude upon cheating. (加连接词.表示下面说的道德认知情况是上面说得reasons的一种) If students consider cheating as just a way for obtaining a higher grade rather than a terrible problem in the reason that the lesson they learnt is too difficult and useless to spend much time on it, (句法) they will still do not (语法) really obey the honor codes. So, making students know the dangerous effect on cheating, along with the help of codes will probably the better way to decrease cheating in academic endeavors. (看你的提纲可以明白你的意图是什么.不过段落开头部分表达太糟糕.看得一头雾水.这一段没有反驳新制度是无用的,而且给出了补充的方法,放在最后作为补充攻击会比较好.)

Even if cheating correlates the number of reports and the better codes do make help, (此处让步只是针对第一个body,没有针对第二个.段落顺序安排的问题) there is no adequate evidence to prove that the G’s honor codes are successful. In this argument, the author pointed out the number of G's cheating is less reported by students than by teachers and also reduces in the past five years with the honor codes, (看不清你要说什么,巨拗口无比) it does not mean that less students cheat than before, nevertheless, the real fact maybe that students do not report though they see a cheating act. (这一段失败.批驳的重点应该放在现行方法相对于原先方法的缺陷.基本没有提到)

In addition, the recent survey mentioned in the argument also has nothing to help testify the success of the honor codes. According to the survey, though the students demonstrate that it is less impossible for them to cheat (更少地不可能就是说更加会作弊.说反了) since the honor codes, what they say is not usually equal with what they do. (本段真正的深入论证就这么一句.太少) Since the survey do not show the investigation on the real acts in the situation the students are taking the academic endeavors, it is hard to say the honor codes can do a good work. (单薄)

Finally, the honor codes similar to G's may not adapted to other colleges or universities, even though the codes are proved to be successful, is just a typical one (需要表达的意思是这个是特例,但是你说得是这个是典型) so that the honor codes cannot be utilized to other institutions. Honesty is most important to the honor codes. The old-fashioned codes calls teacher's responsibilities, (无用,删去) by contrast, the honor ones are controlled by students. So if other institutions’ students take much more concerns on the grade they get, obviously, they will not report who have cheated because all of them do the same way. (看不懂.如果学生更重视成绩,则他们不会报告作弊行为,因为他们都这么做.这个有逻辑么?) Therefore, using the honor codes similar to G's does no benefits to other institutions. (本段完败.段首是提出不能类比,而下面的论证根本就没有提到两学校的对比)

In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. To make the argument more convincing, the author should have a more complete understanding about how to reduce cheating and the value of the codes preventing students form cheating. Moreover, the author should provide more useful information, especially the information linked to the survey, to strongly prove the author’s recommendation.

攻击顺序建议:
把第一个body跟第三个body放在最前面
然后攻击地点类比和survey
最后再来一个补充,也就是第二个body

不用写这么多body
考场上不可能有这个时间的除非你是使徒兄.....

段落内攻击还不成熟.
建议多看看精华区的文章.

不过第一次写
这个水平还是可以接受的
加油

manadUID：2244611

谢谢iq大大
我一定会努力地改的！
现在就行动！先去看精华区！
==============
汗，看过了，第二个攻击的contribute to其实是想写attribute to的，不知道怎么写成这个词了

[ 本帖最后由 manad 于 2007-3-20 01:16 编辑 ]

iq28UID：2152875

汗
我刚发现你标题格式是错的...

把argument跟242之间的空格去掉