0910G[North America Flying]Argument242 by fake

fake2009UID: 2631119

242The 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."

提纲：
1. honor code 和old-fashioned system之间的比较，作者没有证据表明honor code比old-fashioned system 更成功
2. 缺乏Groveton和other colleges and universities之间的comprehensive comparison。各个学校的情况不尽相同，honor code在G成功，在其它学校未必成功

An honor code is brought out by Groveton College (GC), as the speaker asserted, is a comparatively new fashioned system which aims at preventing students from cheating. However, to some degree, it is lacking in the necessary proof and reasoning. There’s no convincing statistics provided to support the position that the new honor code is running more successful and efficient than the old-system. At this point, the fact that thirty cases of cheating per year were reported is not strong evidence for the doubt of the authenticity of the data. Perhaps some of the students who committed cheating are not unfolded and reported. It’s possible that the number of actual existed cheating action is far beyond the provided level.

In addition, the speaker cites a survey that consists of the figures of the first and fifth year. Despite the obvious drop in the number, it’s not well grounded without the condition of three years in between. Perhaps the overall situation of the five years is not stable but fluctuated. At this perspective, the survey is not powerful enough to persuade the old-fashioned system is necessarily replaced by the new honor code introduced by GC. So the average number of the cheating cases might be of more value to this point. What’s more, as far as I am concerned, the comparison is reasonable only under an assumption that after the GC honor code is adopted, the condition of the college is unchangeable, including education management, the quality of the newly enrolled students, and etc.

Even if the pushing of the new honor code by GC is really successful, it is unnecessarily generalized to such a large scope that every college is suggested to be involved in this action. As far as GC is concerned, the success might be based on the severe supervision and serious punishment system which is especially effective to the specific group of students. Or perhaps the value of honesty held by those students motivates them to behave honestly and sincerely. These detailed conditions vary school from school, which directly weaken the position that the successful action taken by GC can be at the same time effective to other colleges.

To sum up, before the speaker reaches a conclusion that colleges should adopt the same honor code with GC, he must be more convincing in the following aspects. The powerful proof, say the more detailed and precise survey which can persuade us the merit and advantage of the new honor code compared with the old one, the comprehensive comparison between schools which assure safe generalization and spread of the GC honor code. Without the mentioned improvement in the speaker’s reasoning, the argument is less reliable and dependable.

jamesgUID: 2644157

An honor code is(删) brought out by GrovetonCollege (GC), as the speaker asserted, is (谓语在这) acomparatively new fashioned system which aims at preventing students fromcheating. However, to some degree, it is lacking in the (lacking of ) necessaryproof and reasoning. (另起)There’s no convincing statistics provided tosupport the position that the new honor code is running more successful andefficient than the old-system. At this point, the fact that thirty cases ofcheating per year were reported is not strong evidence for the doubt of theauthenticity of the
data.  (它的证据为老方法的30减到新方法的14,表述有点偷懒)Perhaps some of the students who committed cheating are notunfolded and reported. It’s possible that the number of actual existed cheatingaction is far beyond the provided level. (Without ruling out suchpossibilities, I cannot accept the arguer’s point)

In addition, the speaker cites a survey that consists of the figures ofthe first and fifth year. Despite the obvious drop in the number, it’s not wellgrounded without the condition of three years in between. Perhaps theoverall situation of the five years is not stable but fluctuated. (Good point)Atthis perspective, the survey is not powerful enough to persuade theold-fashioned system is necessarily replaced by the new honor code introducedby GC. So the average number of the cheating cases might be of more value tothis point. What’s more, as far as I am concerned, the comparison is reasonableonly under an assumption that after the GC honor code is adopted, the conditionof the college is unchangeable (unchanged),including education management, the quality of the newly enrolled students, andetc. (Without… the arguer cannot…)

Even if the pushing of the new honor code by GC is really successful, itis unnecessarily generalized to such a large scope that every college is suggestedto be involved in this action. As far as GC is concerned, the success might bebased on the severe supervision and serious punishment system, which isespecially effective to the specific group of students. Or perhaps the value ofhonesty held by those students motivates them to behave honestly and sincerely.These detailed conditions vary school from school, which directly weaken theposition that the successful action taken by GC can be at the same timeeffective to other colleges.

To sum up,before the speaker reaches a conclusion that colleges should adopt the samehonor code with GC, he must be more convincing in the following aspects. Thepowerful proof, say the more detailed and precise survey which can persuade usthe merit and advantage of the new honor code compared with the old one, thecomprehensive comparison between schools which assure safe generalization andspread of the GC honor code. Without the mentioned improvement in the speaker’sreasoning, the argument is less reliable and dependable.



找出文中两个错误 1.错误数据 2错误类比
结构建议,一段另起处另起, in addition段属于反驳数据而不是survey, 文中的survey是最后一句.
这样的话主体三段为 1段反驳数据真实性 2段反驳数据可靠性 3段反驳类比错误
然后还剩下末句那个survey需要反驳一下~

fake2009UID: 2631119

An honor code brought out by Groveton College (GC), as the speaker asserted, is a comparatively new fashioned system which aims at preventing students from cheating. However, to some degree, it is lacking of necessary proof and reasoning.

There’s no convincing statistics provided to support the position that the new honor code is running more successfully and efficiently than the old-system. At this point, the fact that sixteen cases of cheating in decrease per year were reported is not strong evidence for the doubt of the authenticity of the data. Perhaps some of the students who committed cheating are not unfolded and reported. It’s possible that the number of actual existed cheating action is far beyond the provided level. Without ruling out such possibilities, I cannot accept the arguer’s point.

In addition, the speaker cites the figures of the first and fifth year to defend the advantages of the GC honor code. Despite the obvious drop in the number, it’s not well grounded without the condition of three years in between. Perhaps the overall situation of the five years is not stable but fluctuated. At this perspective, the survey is not powerful enough to persuade the old-fashioned system is necessarily replaced by the new honor code introduced by GC. So the average number of the cheating cases might be of more value to this point. What’s more, as far as I am concerned, the comparison is reasonable only under an assumption that after the GC honor code is adopted, the condition of the college is unchanged, including education management, the quality of the newly enrolled students, and etc. Without confirm the reliability of the statistics, the arguer cannot win the defense.

Even if the pushing of the new honor code by GC is really successful, it is unnecessarily generalized to such a large scope that every college is suggested to be involved in this action. As far as GC is concerned, the success might be based on the severe supervision and serious punishment system, which is especially effective to the specific group of students. Or perhaps the value of honesty held by those students motivates them to behave honestly and sincerely. These detailed conditions vary school from school, which directly weaken the position that the successful action taken by GC can be at the same time effective to other colleges.

To sum up, before the arguer reaches a conclusion that colleges should adopt the same honor code with GC, he must do more work in the following aspects. The powerful proof, say the more detailed and precise survey which can persuade us the merit and advantage of the new honor code compared with the old one, and the comprehensive comparison between schools which assure safe generalization and spread of the GC honor code. In the recent survey, the students declared that they would be less likely to be cheating with GC honor code. However, I hold the tenet that to see is to believe. Without the valid data provided and the mentioned improvement in the speaker’s reasoning, the argument is less reliable and dependable.