argument242 ＝so what=小组第三次作业 by 紫薇花开

紫薇花开UID: 2461167

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。

紫薇花开UID: 2461167

素材 主要是根据草木的同志题写做的分析
手：definition-->background information-->a recent survey

脚：contrast

眼睛：conclusion<--耳朵 definition1

提纲：定义1有误导致 这个建议不合理    因为定义是建立在怀疑的基础上的
       2.定义2 和调查不能到处背景信息  过时的制度 不能说他不使用  或许是老师监管不力 等原因   最近的调查不能令人信服 因为他不能预示采取这个措施之后学生的真实做法
3.对比 不具有借鉴意义 他不能说明 G学校采取这个制度之后五年内的真实情况  进而不能说明作者的建议是可取的

紫薇花开UID: 2461167

This argument is well-present, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. In this argument, the arguer presents two definitions, a survey and a contrast in order to support his/her suggestion that college and university should adopt honor codes similar to Groventon’s, which seems logical.
Firstly, the suggestion isn’t adapt to practice based on the definition that it 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. To begin with, the auger assumes that if students assent this constitution, then they will follow it. But there is no evidence. We all know that everyone has a quality of lazy. Without the constraint from institution such as college and university, no one can confirm that students will comply with the advice in action. If the word students said have a worthy of believing in, there is no necessary to suggest this suggestion. In addition, because this method fundamental on suspicion will bring a chaos to school, at the same time, will destroy the friendship between them. So I think it is necessary for the arguer to consider this advice and it will be good to revise it.
Secondly, the arguer claims the old-fashioned system, and offers a contrast between the situation of the first year and that of five years later in order to assert the honor code has proven far more successful. It seems logical but there are many problems. In one hand, the arguer considers that the old-fashioned system fails because of an average of thirty cases of cheating per year, but I think there may be other reasons. For example, as a result of malpractice of faculty--teachers don’t carefully supervise, there is a rise in cheating. In other hand, the contrast makes no sense. The two numbers represent nothing. The arguer neither offers the declination trends over five years nor states specifically what the situation is in other three years.
At last, the arguer cites a survey conducted these suggestion will be very effective, but there is no convincing evidence. What students said may only represent their will that they don’t want to cheat, but practically we know nothing about what they will do. So I think it is necessary for arguer to do more survey in detail.
To sum up, Although the arguer provide many things to vote for his suggestion, but we need more evidence to confirm that this suggestion are effective and adaptable.

2006201652UID: 2496703

This argument is well-present, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. In this argument, the arguer presents two definitions, a survey and a contrast in order to support his/her suggestion that college and university should adopt honor codes similar to Groventon’s, which seems logical.（开头简练）

Firstly, the suggestion isn’t adapt to practice based on the definition that it 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. To begin with, the auger assumes that if students assent this constitution, then they will follow it. But there is no evidence. We all know that everyone has a quality(nature) of lazy. Without the constraint from institution such as college and university, no one can confirm that students will comply with the advice in action. If the word students said have a worthy of(is worth) believing in, there is no necessary to suggest this suggestion(没有看明白你想表达什么). In addition, because（delete，否则就是一个because引导的从句） this method fundamental on suspicion will bring a chaos to school, at the same time, will destroy the friendship between them. So I think it is necessary for the arguer to consider this advice(the arguer can not neglect this point) and it will be good to revise it(感觉后半句可以写的更地道些，==.我不知道该怎么改..).

Secondly, the arguer claims the old-fashioned system, and offers a contrast between the situation of the first year and that of five years later in order to assert the honor code has proven far more successful. It seems logical but there are many problems. In one hand, the arguer considers that the old-fashioned system fails because of an average of thirty cases of cheating per year, but I think there may be other reasons（后边加定语修饰一下更具如：to the cheating）. For example, as a result of malpractice of faculty--teachers don’t carefully supervise, there is a rise in cheating. In other hand, the contrast makes no sense. The two numbers represent nothing. The arguer neither offers the declination trends over five years nor states specifically what the situation is in other three years.

At last, the arguer cites a survey conducted these suggestion will be very effective, but there is no convincing evidence. What students said may only represent their will that they don’t want to cheat, but practically we know nothing about what they will do. So I think it is necessary for arguer to do more survey in detail.

To sum up, Although the arguer provide many things to vote for his suggestion, but we need more evidence to confirm that this suggestion are effective and adaptable.
攻击点全面。论述可以在充实些，使其更饱满。整体语言有待提高。

ZhouPYFUID: 2633778

This argument is well-present, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. In this argument, the arguer presents two definitions, a survey and a contrast in order to support his/her suggestion that college and university should adopt honor codes similar to Groventon’s, which seems logical.(这个开头很新颖阿，没怎么见过……是不是在seems logical后面加上 but still there are several flaws as follows)

Firstly, the suggestion isn’t adapt to practice based on the definition that it 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. To begin with, the auger assumes that if students assent this constitution, then they will follow it. But there is no evidence. We all know that everyone has a quality of lazy. Without the constraint from institution such as college and university, no one can confirm that students will comply with the advice in action. If the word students said have a worthy of believing in, there is no necessary to suggest this suggestion. In addition, because this method fundamental on suspicion will bring a chaos to school, at the same time, will destroy the friendship between them. So I think it is necessary for the arguer to consider this advice and it will be good to revise it.
这个是怀疑honor code的执行基础是建立在同学互相告发的基础上的么……

Secondly, the arguer claims the old-fashioned system, and offers a contrast between the situation of the first year and that of five years later in order to assert the honor code has proven far more successful. It seems logical but there are many problems. In one hand（这个词组用错了on one hand …on the other hand…）, the arguer considers that the old-fashioned system fails because of an average of thirty cases of cheating per year, but I think there may be other reasons. For example, as a result of malpractice of faculty--teachers don’t carefully supervise, there is a rise in cheating. In other hand, the contrast makes no sense. The two numbers represent nothing. The arguer neither offers the declination trends over five years nor states specifically what the situation is in other three years.

At last, the arguer cites a survey conducted these suggestion will be very effective, but there is no convincing evidence. What students said may only represent their will that they don’t want to cheat, but practically we know nothing about what they will do. So I think it is necessary for arguer to do more survey in detail.（传统的批驳一个survey不好有好多可以攻击的敌方，包括respondents 的背景，年龄层次，这里单纯攻击了一个回答的和做得可能不一样）

To sum up, Although the arguer provide many things to vote for his suggestion, but we need more evidence to confirm that this suggestion are effective and adaptable.（是不是再加几句例如，the argument will be strengthened if author can provide detail information about the repliers of the survey……）

整个思路我觉得是
1觉得honor code的做法还是基于互相告发的基础上，不好
2例举的事实不能证明honor code起到很大作用
3质疑survey 的真实性
第一个攻击点我觉得不是很主流的攻击思想