argument242 ＝so what=小组第三次作业 by xoxlol

XOXLOLUID: 2309408

也是 0910AW［同主题写作］第三期作业

XOXLOLUID: 2309408

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。

提纲：
1.  the statistical comparison is too vague and insufficient to conclude there are less cheat
2. less cheat ≠ less cheater
3. survey
4. honor code may not be the only factor
5. different schools

XOXLOLUID: 2309408

The author made a recommendation of adopting honor codes to combat the reported increasing cases of cheating among college and university based on the case of Groveton College and a recent survey conducted by the school council. This argument seems plausible and advisable, but a close examination reveals its logical flaws and invalidity in several aspects.
To begin with, the statistical comparison between old-fashion system and honor code is too vague and insufficient to conclude that the latter could help decrease the number of cheat. The reported 21 cases of cheating in the first year of the adoption of honor code, which then dropped to 14 five years later, seems like a huge success compared to the previous 30 cases during old-fashion system, however, no statistics of cheat in the following second, third or fourth year of the honor code period has been given. There is possibility of more people actually cheated in the following years, probably more than 30 cases in the old-fashion system. So unless more data having been given, the efficiency of honor code is left in doubt.
Although there is a noticeable drop in the number of reported cheating cases, this fact does not necessarily imply that there is also a drop in the number of cheaters. According to the nature of honor code, a number of alternative possibilities have to be taken into account in why the cases of cheating has decreased but not necessarily so does the number of cheating students. Those possibilities include situations like most of the students focus too much on their own tests to identify who is cheating; students cheat with high-tech devices or other unnoticeable means; students choose to compromise instead of reporting the cheaters in hope of not damaging their friendship; or the worst may be students made agreement to cheat together. Therefore, without ruling out those alternative situations, the assumption that honor code is superior than old-fashion system is unwarranted.
Another weak link of this argument lies in the survey. Since students are the test takers and paper writers, it is understandable and reasonable they tend to answer the survey in favor of themselves. Since honor code is a monitoring system that largely depended on the students' character of honesty and self-restraint, rather than the old-fashion way of being passively exposed under teachers' close watch. Accordingly, honor code would easily win majority of students’ vote.
Additionally, did Groveton use extra help in achieving the success of honor code such as electronic surveillance equipment or enhanced education on sincerity and good faith? If this is the case, then the case of Groveton is not referable and representable at best.
Last, even the Groveton has done an impressive job in the cheating battle with honor code alone, the author overlooks the fact that same method used in different schools may fail to achieve the same resulte or even be counterproductive. Yet, no detailed information about other schools has been provided such as the quality of the students and level of academic request, since students could easily choose to cheat due to their poor character of honesty and self-restraint along with the difficulty of the tests and overwhelming academic pressure.
To sum up, more convincing proof and cogent reasoning is in need to indicate the efficiency of honor code in prevention of cheating, otherwise the author would have made a poor recommendation, which is invalid and even misleading.

gabywUID: 2633725

The author made a recommendation of adopting honor codes to combat the reported increasing cases of cheating among college and university based on the case of Groveton College and a recent survey conducted by the school council. This argument seems plausible and advisable, but a close examination reveals its logical flaws and invalidity in several aspects.
To begin with, the statistical comparison between old-fashion system and honor code is too vague and insufficient to conclude that the latter could help decrease the number of cheat. The reported 21 cases of cheating in the first year of the adoption of honor code, which then dropped to 14 five years later, seems like a huge success compared to the previous 30 cases during old-fashion system, however, no statistics of cheat in the following second, third or fourth year of the honor code period has been given. There is possibility of more people actually cheated in the following years, probably more than 30 cases in the old-fashion system. So unless more data having been given, the efficiency of honor code is left in doubt.
Although there is a noticeable drop in the number of reported cheating cases, this fact does not necessarily imply that there is also a drop in the number of cheaters. According to the nature of honor code, a number of alternative possibilities have to be taken into account in why the cases of cheating has decreased but not necessarily so does the number of cheating students. Those possibilities include situations like most of the students focus too much on their own tests to identify who is cheating; students cheat with high-tech devices or other unnoticeable means; students choose to compromise instead of reporting the cheaters in hope of not damaging their friendship; or the worst may be students made agreement to cheat together.(good!) Therefore, without ruling out those alternative situations, the assumption that honor code is superior than old-fashion system is unwarranted.
Another weak link of this argument lies in the survey. Since students are the test takers and paper writers, it is understandable and reasonable they tend to answer the survey in favor of themselves. Since honor code is a monitoring system that largely depended on the students' character of honesty and self-restraint, rather than the old-fashion way of being passively exposed under teachers' close watch. Accordingly, honor code would easily win majority of students’ vote.
Additionally, did Groveton use extra help in achieving the success of honor code such as electronic surveillance equipment or enhanced education on sincerity and good faith? If this is the case, then the case of Groveton is not referable and representable at best.
Last, even the Groveton has done an impressive job in the cheating battle with honor code alone, the author overlooks the fact that same method used in different schools may fail to achieve the same result or even be counterproductive. Yet, no detailed information about other schools has been provided such as the quality of the students and level of academic request, since students could easily choose to cheat due to their poor character of honesty and self-restraint along with the difficulty of the tests and overwhelming academic pressure.
To sum up, more convincing proof and cogent reasoning is in need to indicate the efficiency of honor code in prevention of cheating, otherwise the author would have made a poor recommendation, which is invalid and even misleading.

关于数据论述的部分很精彩，但是调查那部分读起来没看太懂！

linyan821230UID: 2638813

The author made a recommendation of adopting honor codes to combat the reported increasing cases of cheating among college and university based on the case of Groveton College and a recent survey conducted by the school council. This argument seems plausible and advisable, but a close examination reveals its logical flaws and invalidity in several aspects.
To begin with, the statistical comparison between old-fashion system and honor code is too vague and insufficient to conclude that the latter could help decrease the number of cheat. The reported 21 cases of cheating in the first year of the adoption of honor codes, which then dropped to 14 five years later, seems like a huge success compared to the previous 30 cases during old-fashion system(这用句点吧), however, no statistics of cheat in the following second, third or fourth year of the honor code period has been given. There is possibility of more people actually cheated in the following years, probably more than 30 cases in the old-fashion system. So unless more data having been given, the efficiency of honor code is left in doubt.
Although there is a noticeable drop in the number of reported cheating cases, this fact does not necessarily imply that there is also a drop in the number of cheaters. According to the nature of honor code, a number of alternative possibilities have to be taken into account in why the cases of cheating has decreased but not necessarily so does the number of cheating students. Those possibilities include situations like most of the students focus too much on their own tests to identify who is cheating; students cheat with high-tech devices or other unnoticeable means; students choose to compromise instead of reporting the cheaters in hope of not damaging their friendship; or the worst may be students made agreement to cheat together. Therefore, without ruling out those alternative situations, the assumption that honor code is superior than old-fashion system is unwarranted.
Another weak link of this argument lies in (好) the survey. Since students are the test takers and paper writers, it is understandable and reasonable they tend to answer the survey in favor of themselves. Since honor code is a monitoring system that largely depended on the students' character of honesty and self-restraint, rather than the old-fashion way of being passively exposed under teachers' close watch. Accordingly, honor code would easily win majority of students’ vote.
Additionally, did Groveton use extra help in achieving the success of honor code such as electronic surveillance equipment or enhanced education on sincerity and good faith? If this is the case, then the case of Groveton is not referable and representable at best.
Last, even the Groveton has done an impressive job in the cheating battle with honor code alone, the author overlooks the fact that same method used in different schools may fail to achieve the same resulte or even be counterproductive. Yet, no detailed information about other schools has been provided such as the quality of the students and level of academic request, since students could easily choose to cheat due to their poor character of honesty (poor character of honesty好像不是很合适，建议 lack of honesty) and self-restraint along with the difficulty of the tests and overwhelming academic pressure.
To sum up, more convincing proofs and cogent reasoning is （are） in need to indicate the efficiency of honor code in prevention of cheating, otherwise the author would have made a poor recommendation, which is invalid and even misleading.

表达很顺畅，观点也鲜明。继续加油吧