Argument242,我的第一篇

susanbai0330UID: 2442910

This article concludes that Groveton’s honor code which replaced the old-fashioned monitored system by teachers has proven successful and made the figure of cases of cheating declined. Other universities should do the same thing as Groveton. To support this claim, the article points out the following facts:(1)The new system of Groveton ask the student not to cheat in their study and call the teachers if they find others do cheating.(2)Using this new system ,the cases of cheating that the students reported is only twenty-one in the first year.(3)After five years, the number of cheating falled to forteen. (4)And a huge part of students claimed that there would be less cheating under this honor code in the recent survey conducted by Groveton honor council.Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the article.

First, the article assumes that other institutions should adopt the same honor code as Groveton’s.Yet it fails to offer any envidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. Absent such envidence, it is just as likely that in other institutions that the students would not accept this honor code; for that matter, perhaps, the new honor code system doesn’t work at all.

Secondly,the problem with the article involves the cited statistic about an average number of the old-fashioned system reported.It is unreasonable to draw any conlusion based on this statistic.

Thirdly,depending on the figure that students reported in the first year and five years later, it is not easy to prove the Groveton’s honor code is a successful one. It is entirely possible that students still cheat in their academic endeavors but others would not notify the faculty members when they suspect. If so, then the number of cases of cheating might drop down as the figure cited in the article.

Finally,the survey might be problematic in two respects: On one hand, we are not informed whether the survey required the respondents impressed their true ideas in their deep hearts. One the other hand, the survey is conducted by the Groveton honor council which establish this new system. The perfect result they showed might be profitable to themselves and incredible. So in either event, the survey result would be unreliable for the purpose of drawing any conclusion.

In sum, the article relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it ,the author must either do a recent survey about Groveton’s honor code or provide better envidence that the new system may adapt the need of dropping down the figure of cases of cheating in the students’ acadimic endeavors.

sally_zhiyiUID: 2636363

1# susanbai0330


This article concludes that Groveton’s (Groveton College’s 我认为这两个是不同的概念，一个是指地名，一个指的是学校，所以college不能落下,之后我就不改了，用红色标出) honor code which replaced the old-fashioned monitored system by teachers has proven (to be) successful and made the figure of cases of cheating declined. Other universities should do the same thing as Groveton (Groveton College). To support this claim, the article points out the following facts: (1)The (the) new system of Groveton ask (asks) the student not to cheat in their study and call the teachers if they find others do cheating; (2)Using this new system, the cases of cheating that the students reported is only twenty-one in the first year; (3)After five years, the number of cheating falled (fall) to forteen (fourteen); (4)And a huge part of students claimed that there would be less cheating under this honor code in the recent survey conducted by Groveton honor council. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the article.

First, the article assumes that other institutions should adopt the same honor code as Groveton’s. Yet it fails to offer any envidence (evidence) to substantiate this crucial assumption. Absent such envidence, it is just as likely that in other institutions that the students would not accept this honor code; for that matter, perhaps, the new honor code system doesn’t work at all. (这段话只说了honor code不适合别的学校，那到底为什么不适合，哪里不适合，猫猫没有做出解释)

Secondly,the(像这样的小错误就不要再犯了，多打一个空格就好)problem with the article involves the cited statistic about an average number of the old-fashioned system reported.It is unreasonable to draw any conlusion (conclusion) based on this statistic. (其实这里可以详细说，把文中的statistic摆出来，然后驳倒它。)

Thirdly,depending (像这样的小错误就不要再犯了，多打一个空格就好) on the figure that students reported in the first year and five years later, it is not easy to prove the Groveton’s honor code is a successful one. It is entirely possible that students still cheat in their academic endeavors but others would not notify the faculty members when they suspect. If so, then the number of cases of cheating might drop down as the figure cited in the article.

Finally,the (加空格，不要再犯了) survey might be problematic in two respects: On one hand, we are not informed whether the survey required the respondents impressed their true ideas in their deep hearts. One the other hand, the survey is conducted by the Groveton honor council which establish (establishes) this new system. The perfect result they showed might be profitable to themselves (them) and incredible (难以置信？不明白为什么这里要用这个词~). So in either event, the survey result would be unreliable for the purpose of drawing any conclusion.

In sum, the article relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it ,the(又来了，小错误) author must either do a recent survey about Groveton’s honor code or provide better envidence (evidence) that the new system may adapt the need of dropping down the figure of cases of cheating in the students’ acadimic (academic) endeavors.

总评：
1、字数掌握的挺好的，不算多也不算少。
2、注意拼写，例如标点符号后空一格再写下一句、单词大小写、单词拼写错误的问题。
3、极品猫猫能用自己的话复述原文，这点很好。但不足的地方是，你在驳论作者的观点没有给出一两个令人信服的理由，在这方面需要多下功夫。
4、还有，第一段花费太多笔墨了，复述的东西其实可以在正文段里一一指出，顺便就把它驳倒了。我个人认为这样你较好，否则有点头重脚轻的感觉~~
好了，就总结到这吧^_^ 继续努力！加油↖(^ω^)↗

.C.C.UID: 2645494

A07 第三次作业 Issues157 http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=972960&extra=

.C.C.UID: 2645494

额，发错