0910AW 同主题写作第三期 ARGUMENT242 by chill_ly

chill_lyUID: 2640200

TOPIC: ARGUMENT242 - 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."
WORDS: 491
TIME: 01:48:07
DATE: 2009/6/13 0:58:31

How to deal with cheating among college and university students is still a difficult problem for educators today. To solve it, the arguer suggests the honor codes and provides some evidences. However, carefully analyzed, such method cannot be a good idea.


First, let's look into how the honor codes works. As mentioned in the argument, the honor codes 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. It's common knowledge that it is the students that cheat, so how can we believes that the cheaters themselves would not cheat anymore, just like to trust a thief would not steal. If someone has make up his or her mind to cheat in a certain exam, the agreement he or she made of not to cheat means nothing to him or her. The method also ask students to supervise others, but the fact is that when taking an exam, students, except for those cheaters, are absorbed in their papers, how can they care for others and they would be less likely to report those rule-breakers after the exam. What's more, if the cheater is your friend, will you tell the fact to teachers? I cannot imagine if some students cooperate in cheating, barely can the method work. So, the honor codes itself do have some shortcoming and can hardly make sense handling the problem.

Nevertheless, the arguer attempts to prove the system feasible with a contrast of cases of cheating between the first year it was in place and five years later. But the contrast is problematic for it does not show any information about the other four years, maybe during the unmentioned years the number of cheating reported increased or did not have an apparent drop and the result given may be causal. Those missing information may make a big difference. Therefore, the contrast seems unwarranted to support the arguer's suggestion.

Moreover, the recent survey is not valid enough to substantiate the system will work effective. After all, the students who want to cheat make up a small number, so the majority of students' choices make no sense for they will not cheat and which system college use seems the same, therefore, what they said may just those met the rule-makers. Generally, students' reaction on such system cannot be very cogent and it can just play the role of reference, not the role of evidence.

Last but not the least, even if the system does work in Groveton College, the arguer cannot assume that it will have an effect in other colleges or universities. Perhaps the most of students in Groveton is conscientious and will restrain them from cheating, which leads to the consequence, but the situation is different in other colleges, so it does work there.

In conclusion, the evidences the arguer given is far from cogent, and unless more sound reason provided, I will not accept the suggestion.

lela900UID: 2634833

How to deal with cheating among college and university students is still a difficult problem for educators today. （开头过于简单，注意简练不同于简单）To solve it, the arguer suggests the honor codes and provides some evidences. However, carefully analyzed, such method cannot be a good idea(这种断句不好).
First, let's（太口语化） look into how the honor codes works.（每段开头要把topic sentence 显示出来，这样思路明显） As mentioned in the argument, the honor codes calls(复数） for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated. It's common knowledge that it is the students that cheat, so how can we believes that the cheaters themselves would not cheat anymore, just like to trust a thief would not steal.（作弊的学生的确存在，但可能是其他不作弊的汇报。明白作者的意思是学生说的不可信，但你这个句子有些以偏概全了！） If someone has make(made) up his or her mind to cheat in a certain exam, the agreement(?) he or she made of not to cheat means nothing to him or her. The method also ask(单数问题,而且the method 能作主语吗？制定者是老师吧) students to supervise others（改为The students are asked。。。） , but the fact is that when taking an exam, students,(删去) except for those cheaters, are absorbed in their papers, how can they care for others and.  As a result,they would be less likely to report those rule-breakers after the exam. What's more, if the cheater is your friend, will you tell the fact to teachers?(这个太不口语了吧~明白你的意思，但这是aw，说法得换！整篇中尽量不要出现you或者I/we之类的) I cannot imagine if some students cooperate in cheating, barely can the method work. So, the honor codes itself do have some shortcomings and can hardly make sense in handling the problem.

Nevertheless, the arguer attempts to prove the system feasible with a contrast of cases of cheating between the first year it was in place and five years later. But the contrast is problematic for it does not show any information about the other four years, maybe during the unmentioned years the number of cheating reported increased or did not have an apparent drop and the result given may be causal(有原因的？). Those missing information may make a big difference. Therefore, the contrast seems unwarranted to support the arguer's suggestion.

Moreover, the recent survey is not valid enough to substantiate that the system will work effectively. After all, the students who want to cheat make up a small number(组成了一个小数字？), so the majority of students' choices make no sense for they will not cheat and which system college use seems the same, therefore, what they said may just those met(?) the rule-makers. Generally, students' reaction on such system cannot be very cogent and it can just play the role of reference, not the role of evidence(good!).

Last but not the least, even if the system does work in Groveton College, the arguer cannot assume that it will have an effect inon other colleges or universities. Perhaps the most of students in Groveton is conscientious and will restrain them from cheating, which leads to the consequence(建议把是什么consequence说清楚), but the situation is different in other colleges, so it does work there.

In conclusion, the evidences the arguer given is far from cogent, and unless more sound reason provided, I will not accept the suggestion.
几个问题：
1.本文口语化过于严重，不知道作文有没有仔细分析过6或5分作文。真的要多学习他们的严谨语言。
2.明显看出没有列提纲写作。开头结尾过于简单，而且套句痕迹严重。这样就导致了内容空洞。重点是正文部分，你的正文分了4段。其实也不是非要3段不可。你的观点是：1.honor codes 没有效果因为学生不可信；2.论据给出的数据一年和五年前的太片面；3.又说到学生不可信，虽说是从调查中得出；4.在其他学校未必有用。从结构上来说，你完全可以把1和3并入一块。从分析上来说，不够透彻。不是说非要用特牛逼的词，但你的思想没有从你的语言中得到体现。虽说aw看重的是分析的逻辑思想，但没有一个不说好但准确而周全的语言你如何体现？
3.错误太多，建议作者写好后赶快放到word里用纠错功能检查下。
不知道这是作者的第几篇a，我想说的是，你从现在起赶快建立良好的写作习惯应该还来的及！
Ps.以上纯粹个人观点。如果有任何意见，欢迎跟我讨论！本着认真的态度我修改了你的习作，也希望你有对此有个回复！

chill_lyUID: 2640200

2# lela900

谢谢木子同学的批改和批评,我的确有很多没有注意的地方.
写完的确放到word里查过了错,不过的确存在查不出来的问题,自己没有细看
这是写的第三篇,从开始就决定脱离模板所以很多地方写的很随性,想法是说清楚就好,但严谨的确不足

范文稍微研究了下,觉得他们的行文很自然,想达到这一点还要不少努力
开头结尾我认为不是重点,开头入题即可,结尾总结也不需要太多

口语化的问题我还一直没注意到,以后要更严谨一些.

chill_lyUID: 2640200

简单改了下,等组里互改,之后再完善

How to deal with cheating among college and university students is still a difficult problem for educators today. To solve it, the arguer suggests the honor codes and provides some evidences. However, some flaws make the argument questionable, and I will discuss them in turn.

First, the way honor codes works is not reliable to control cheating. As mentioned in the argument, the honor codes 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. Based on the fact that cheating does exist among students, it is unwise to believe in all the students. If someone has made up his or her mind to cheat in a certain exam, the agreement of not to cheat he or she made means nothing to him or her. The students are also asked to supervise others, but the fact is that when taking an exam, students are absorbed in their papers, how can they care for others and.  As a result, they would be less likely to report those rule-breakers after the exam. What's more, one is unlikely to report his or her friend’s cheating in the exam, and if some students cooperate in cheating, barely can the method work. So, the honor codes itself do have some shortcomings and can hardly make sense in handling the problem.

Nevertheless, the arguer attempts to prove the system feasible with a contrast of cases of cheating between the first year it was in place and five years later. But the contrast is problematic for it does not show any information about the other four years, maybe during the unmentioned years the number of cheating reported increased or did not have an apparent drop and the result given may be casual. Those missing information may make a big difference. Therefore, the contrast seems unwarranted to support the arguer's suggestion.

Moreover, the recent survey is not valid enough to substantiate that the system will work effectively. After all, the students who want to cheat make up a part, so the majority of students' choices make no sense for they will not cheat and which system college use seems the same, therefore, what they said may just those met the rule-makers’ will. Generally, students' reaction on such system cannot be very cogent and it can just play the role of reference, not the role of evidence.

Last but not the least, even if the system does work in Groveton College, the arguer cannot assume that it will have an effect on other colleges or universities. Perhaps the most of students in Groveton is conscientious and will restrain them from cheating, which leads to the consequence that the system works, but the situation may be different in other colleges, so it does not work there.


In conclusion, the evidences the arguer given is far from cogent, for he or she has ignore some facts mentioned above and the evidences given is somewhat misleading. So, unless more sound reasons provided, I will not accept the suggestion.

lela900UID: 2634833

其实我也被批过模板重,但是在一个几乎人人都说A还是要准备模版的年代,我不知道该怎么做到不留任何模版痕迹~
唉...
还望你指点~

chill_lyUID: 2640200

指点谈不上,能建立自己的模板也不错,多看看native speaker的文章应该会有帮助
5# lela900

leopard2009UID: 2596872

Howto deal with cheating among college and university students is still adifficult problem for educators today. To solve it, the arguer suggeststhe honor codes and provides some evidences. However, some flaws makethe argument questionable, and I will discuss them in turn.
很简洁的开头，不错哈
First, the way honor codes works is not reliable to control cheating. As mentioned in the argument, the honor codes calls
forstudents to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and tonotify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated. Basedon the fact that cheating does exist among students, it is unwise tobelieve in all the students. If someone has made up his or her mind tocheat in a certain exam, the agreement of not to cheat\not cheating he or she mademeans nothing to him or her. The students are also asked to superviseothers, but the fact is that when taking an exam, students are absorbedin their papers, how can they care for others 【and】.  As a result, theywould be less likely to report those rule-breakers after the exam.What's more, one is unlikely to report his or her friend’s cheating inthe exam, and if some students cooperate in cheating, barely can themethod work. So, the honor codes itself do have some shortcomings andcan hardly make sense in handling the problem.

Nevertheless, the arguer attempts to prove the system feasible with acontrast of cases of cheating between the first year it was in placeand five years later. But the contrast is problematic for it does notshow any information about the other four years, maybe during theunmentioned years the number of cheating reported increased or did nothave an apparent drop and the result given may be casual. Those missinginformation may make a big difference. Therefore, the contrast seemsunwarranted to support the arguer's suggestion.

Moreover, the recent survey is not valid enough to substantiate thatthe system will work effectively. After all, the students who want tocheat make up a part, so the majority of students' choices make nosense for they will not cheat and which system college use seems thesame, therefore, what they said may just those met the rule-makers’will. Generally, students' reaction on such system cannot be verycogent and it can just play the role of reference, not the role ofevidence.
这一段的论述有点软，其实主要是没有提供给我们survey的样本质量和数量，我们没法得出是否survey的结果是可靠的哈
Last but not the least, even if the system does work in GrovetonCollege, the arguer cannot assume that it will have an effect on othercolleges or universities. Perhaps the most of students in Groveton isconscientious and will restrain them from cheating, which leads to theconsequence that the system works, but the situation may be differentin other colleges, so it does not work there.


In conclusion, theevidences the arguer given\gives is far from cogent, for he or she has ignoresome facts mentioned above and the evidences given is somewhatmisleading. So, unless more sound reasons are provided, I will not acceptthe suggestion.

作者的写作功底应该不错的，语法错误较少，要是在论述观点的时候更加直接就更好一点哈

chill_lyUID: 2640200

后面的同学直接在7l上改吧
希望多提些分析上的缺点,以及文章整体结构风格的问题
也可以说说对A的看法哈
帖子被锁了,快开了,开了再改吧 不好意思

dodoluluUID: 2641270

开头，这样简洁点挺好的，a的关键还是后面的论述
还有就是攻击survey的问题，没有一定的逻辑功底，确实很难把话说圆，就是你常说的深入分析做不好。
觉得写argu不需要太创新，攻击点按照前人完善好了的来就行，我的看法。