0910G[JUST DO IT] argument242 by二月蓝

二月蓝UID: 2643877

0910G[JUST DO IT] argument242
    Grounding on the Groveton’s honor code which replaced an old-fashioned system and an average of thirty cases of cheating per year were reported, comparing cheating frequency in two years in the case of honor codes, supplying a survey in which students said they would be less likely to cheat, the editorial accordingly conclude that the institutions should adopt honor codes which could effectively drop the cheating frequency. However, although the conclusion sounds indeed reasonable at first thought, a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and several logical flaws may seriously undermine this argument.
    First of all, there are some queries on the Groveton’s honor code which may not apply in all institutions. Firstly, agreeing not to cheat in academic endeavors is not equal to honesty. Why Groveton’s honor code could replace an old-fashioned system is relying on the confidence in students. Only the students have better quality, teachers could at ease. Secondly, the student who was notified by his classmate may not really cheat, because the suspicion is subject. The behavior of notifying may aggravate psychological pressure of the students. It is still a big problem that whether the Groveton’s honor code could effectively drop the cheating frequency.
    In addition, the comparison between the two years may not be reliable. Although the cheating frequency in the fifth year is less than the first one, there are some influencing factors. For example, both the improvement of quality of students and revolution in education could depress the cheating frequency. Moreover, the editorial does not show the data about the second, third, fourth year. If any data in the five years is higher than the former year, the figure would not make any sense.
    Finally, the survey cited by the editorial may misguide the students. It is all a matter of common sense that the students may not admit they want to cheat in an exam. We must consider how the survey was conducted. The students may not deliver themselves of real opinions. Moreover, a majority of students is a sample and it can not represent a whole. If the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answers. Therefore, until these questions are answered, it is impossible to assess the validity and reliability of the survey.

    To sum up, the conclusion lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the editorial maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide us more evidence concerning the survey and the comparison in five years’ data.

greenxsUID: 2529289

Grounding on the Groveton’s honor code我看的时候这个好像是复数 which replaced an old-fashioned system and an average of thirty cases of cheating per year were reported, comparing cheating frequency in two years in the case of honor codes, supplying a survey in which students said they would be less likely to cheat, the editorial accordingly conclude that the institutions should adopt honor codes which could effectively drop the cheating frequency. However, although the conclusion sounds indeed reasonable at first thought, a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and several logical flaws may seriously undermine this argument.
First of all, there are some queries on the Groveton’s honor code which may not apply in all institutions. Firstly, agreeing not to cheat in academic endeavors is not equal to honesty. Why Groveton’s honor code could replace an old-fashioned system is relying on the confidence in students.这句话可以使一个陈述句么 Only the students have better quality, teachers could at ease. Secondly, the student who was notified by his classmate may not really cheat, because the suspicion is subject. The behavior of notifying may aggravate psychological pressure of the students. It is still a big problem that whether the Groveton’s honor code could effectively drop the cheating frequency.
In addition, the comparison between the two years may not be reliable. Although the cheating frequency in the fifth year is less than the first one, there are some influencing factors. For example, both the improvements of quality of students and revolution in education could depress the cheating frequency. Moreover, the editorial does not show the data about the second, third, and fourth year. If any data in the five years is higher than the former year, the figure would not make any sense.
Finally, the survey cited by the editorial may misguide the students. It is all 这个all我觉得可以去掉a matter of common sense that the students may not admit they want to cheat in an exam. We must consider how the survey was conducted. The students may not deliver themselves of real opinions. Moreover, a majority of students is a sample and it can not represent a whole. If the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answers. Therefore, until these questions are answered,前面这半句可以放在句尾 it is impossible to assess the validity and reliability of the survey.
To sum up, the conclusion lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the editorial maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide us more evidence concerning the survey and the comparison in five years’ data.

如果结尾可以把你上文说的逻辑错误对号总结可能会正好，写的不错，是掐时间写的么


1# 二月蓝

二月蓝UID: 2643877

不是掐时间，肯定有接近2小时，找单词啊就忙半天

WONDERFUL.UID: 2390236

Grounding on the Groveton’s honor code which replaced an old-fashioned system and an average of thirty cases of cheating per year were reported, （个人觉得改成gounded on the fact that...更合适一些），comparing cheating frequency in two years（这里最好说清楚一些） in the case of honor codes, supplying a survey in which students said they would be less likely to cheat, the editorial accordingly conclude(s) that the institutions should adopt honor codes which could effectively drop(这个词需要斟酌，后面也有一处） the cheating frequency(总觉没有cheating cases好，但我也不知道如何避免重复). However, although the conclusion sounds indeed reasonable at first thought, a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and several logical flaws may seriously undermine this argument.(不知道这么写到底效果好不好，很多人都这么写）

    First of all, there are some queries on the Groveton’s honor code which may not apply in all institutions. Firstly, agreeing not to cheat in academic endeavors is not equal to honesty. (the reason)Why Groveton’s honor code could replace an old-fashioned system is relying on the confidence in students. Only the students have better quality, teachers could at ease. Secondly, the student who was notified by his classmate may not really cheat, because the suspicion is subject. The behavior of notifying may aggravate psychological pressure of the students. It is still a big problem that whether the Groveton’s honor code could effectively drop the cheating frequency.

    In addition, the comparison between the two years(description not precise, why two years, could be three, four, first year 30, second 21, third 15) may not be reliable. Although the cheating frequency in the fifth year is less than the first one, there are some influencing factors. For example, both the improvement of quality of students and revolution in education could depress the cheating frequency. Moreover, the editorial does not show the data about the second, third, fourth year. If any data in the five years is higher than the former year, the figure would not make any sense.

    Finally, the survey cited by the editorial may misguide(?) the students. It is all a matter of common sense that the students may not admit they want to cheat in an exam. We must consider how the survey was conducted. The students may not deliver themselves of real opinions. Moreover, a majority of students is a sample and it can not represent a whole. If the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answers. Therefore, until these questions are answered, it is impossible to assess the validity and reliability of the survey.

    To sum up, the conclusion lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the editorial maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide us more evidence concerning the survey and the comparison in five years’ data.(最好是按照顺序来）

读完后，感觉作者用词水平在我之上，需要向作者学习。你想的很全面，但有时候并没有表达清楚，有种知道你的意思，但却又没有尽兴的感觉，就是最后没有被你说服。希望我们共同进步啊，时间不多，大家互改，共同批斗，向马B者学习。

二月蓝UID: 2643877

感谢各位提出的宝贵意见，大家一起努力   
    Grounding on the Groveton’s honor code which replaced an old-fashioned system and an average of thirty cases of cheating per year were reported, comparing cheating frequency in two years in the case of honor codes, supplying a survey in which students said they would be less likely to cheat, the editorial accordingly conclude that the institutions should adopt honor codes which could effectively drop the cheating frequency. However, although the conclusion sounds indeed reasonable at first thought, a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and several logical flaws may seriously undermine this argument.

    First of all, there are some queries on the Groveton’s honor code which may not apply in all institutions. Firstly, agreeing not to cheat in academic endeavors is not equal to honesty. Why Groveton’s honor code could replace an old-fashioned system is relying on the confidence in students. Only the students have better quality, teachers could at ease. Secondly, the student who was notified by his classmate may not really cheat, because the suspicion is subject. The behavior of notifying may aggravate psychological pressure of the students. It is still a big problem that whether the Groveton’s honor code could effectively drop the cheating frequency.

    In addition, the comparison between the two years may not be reliable. Although the cheating frequency in the fifth year is less than the first one, there are some influencing factors. For example, both the improvements of quality of students and revolution in education could depress the cheating frequency. Moreover, the editorial does not show the data about the second, third, and fourth year. If any data in the five years is higher than the former year, the figure would not make any sense.

    Finally, the survey cited by the editorial may misguide the students. It is all a matter of common sense that the students may not admit they want to cheat in an exam. We must consider how the survey was conducted. The students may not deliver themselves of real opinions. Moreover, a majority of students is a sample and it cannot represent a whole. If the survey relied on self reports, the results might be unreliable -- people might just respond with the expected answers. Therefore, until these questions are answered, it is impossible to assess the validity and reliability of the survey.

    To sum up, the conclusion lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis, including inapplicability of Groveton’s honor code, unreasonable comparison between two years, misguiding survey, does not lend strong support to what the editorial maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide us more evidence concerning the comparison in five years’ data and the survey.