argument242@@A Dream@@小组第二次作业~你就死命拍吧，等你写了我去报仇~

小小amyUID: 2541111

"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 was 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."
time:2 hours words: 413    It's my first argument, thank u for reading.

The dramatic rise in cheating among collage and university set alarms to outsider. Obviously, actions should be taken. The honor codes from Groveton demands students guarantee no cheat in their own study and promise to notify a faculty member if they suspect others have cheated. And it made the cheating number comes down from twenty one to fourteen, which seems to be delighting on decreasing the amount, showed the cheating number “fourteen” is still up high. The number doesn’t go down to minimum, which indicates the cheating phenomenon still thrive in its own way. It is doubtable that the declining of the cheating is incidentally led by the high qualified students who happen to don’t need to cheat. It is conceivable that various reasons cause cheating and variant measures which could work out as excellent as the honor codes does
should be lined up to deal with the cheating. Release the academic pressure on students; raise the proportion of class performance scores; foster personal honesty among the group and so on. Why just rely on the honor codes?
Then let’s get a close look on the honor codes itself. It ought not to take place of the traditional invigilating system totally due to its basic which refers the students don’t cheat and be willing to report on others improper behave while not everyone want to be the black sheep. What if the one who cheats is your friend? Few would destroy their friendship forever just for a exam. What’s worse, what if the whole group is cheating together. It turns out to be no one would notify any faculty. Classmates’ up to no good setting up on purpose could mislead others’ misfortune. So we can see students’ informing in honor codes maybe couldn’t work out well and cut down the cheating number distinctly.
As mentioned in the article, the honor codes is undergo only in Groveton. If is really effective, why not other schools imitate as soon as its carry out but waiting for so many years. A survey as supporting factor is used as well, which “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.” It doesn’t point out where does “the majority” come from. If the people who take the survey only regards to the students under the Groveton honor council, it also leads to withdraw of the persuasive power of the system.

大学生作弊增多，就应该将强监管力度这无可厚非。采取G大学信誉制度让学生同意不作弊并举报他人作弊，5年来让作弊人数从21降到14，看起来很可喜，但是从14个这数字来看，作弊的人还是不少的。作弊问题没有从根本上解决，让人怀疑作弊人数的下降仅是因为学生素质的提高不需要作弊而偶然导致的。采取措施来减少作弊需要了解作弊的根源才能从多方面来对症下药。减少课业压力，增加平时分的比重；加强宣传诚信等等。这些措施一起实施起来，如何会比信誉制度差？为何仅靠一信誉制度来抑制作弊现象。
再看制度本身。信誉制度不应该就此完全取代传统的监考方式，因为信誉制度是建立在同学自觉不作弊并举报他人的基础上的，并不是所有的人都会举报看到的作弊者，比如说那人是你朋友，你肯定不会出卖朋友来破坏友谊。更有甚者，如果一个团体如果全部都作弊，自然就没有人会去举报了。同学相互举报也可能造成陷害冤枉他人从而引起不良连锁反应，须增加举报的可信度.这么看来靠同学举报不能有效的抑制学生作弊现象；
文中提到的信誉制度只有G大学一家实行，如果它真的那么有效还不早已被多校效仿，还用等推销。文中还提到该校的调查指出大部分学生觉得有信誉制度让自己想作弊的趋向小了。这个大部分学生没有指明是来自哪里的。单单吊车荣誉制度下的同学对荣誉制度的看法，那范围之小自然着实减少了其说服力。

芊芊QQUID: 2647827

The dramatic rise in cheating among collage and university set alarms to outsider. Obviously, actions should be taken. The honor codes from Groveton demands students guarantee no cheating in their own study and promise to notify a faculty member if they suspect others have cheated. And it made the cheating number comes (come) down(用decrease是不是好些？) from twenty one to fourteen, which seems to be delighting on decreasing the amount, showed the cheating number “fourteen” is still up high. The number doesn’t go down to minimum, which indicates the cheating phenomenon still thrive in its own way. It is doubtable that the declining of the cheating is incidentally led by the high qualified students who happen to don’t need to cheat. It is conceivable that various reasons cause cheating and variant measures which could work out as excellent as the honor codes does（本段主要讲了作弊的原因有多种，得出防止作弊的方法也应有多种的结论）
should be lined up to deal with the cheating. Release the academic pressure on students; raise the proportion of class performance scores; foster personal honesty among the group and so on. Why just rely on the honor codes?
Then let’s get a close look on the honor codes itself. It ought not to take place of the traditional invigilating system totally due to its basic/basis which refers the students don’t cheat and be willing to report on others improper behave while not everyone want to be the black sheep. What if the one who cheats is your friend? Few would destroy their friendship forever just for a/an exam. What’s worse, what if the whole group is cheating together. It turns out to be no one would notify any faculty. Classmates’ up to no good setting up on purpose could mislead others’ misfortune. So we can see students’ informing in honor codes maybe couldn’t work out well and cut down the cheating number distinctly.(本部分说明honor codes在别的学校未必适用)

As mentioned in the article, the honor codes is undergo only in Groveton. If is really effective, why not other schools imitate as soon as its carry out but waiting for so many years. A survey as supporting factor is used as well, which “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.” It doesn’t point out where
does “the majority” come from(where the majority comes from). If the people who take the survey only regards to the students under the Groveton honor council, it also leads to withdraw of the persuasive power of the system.
1,开头和结尾貌似不是很明显。
2，本人认为仅说明防止作弊的方法很多即可，不必分析引起作弊的原因，有点多余。
作者没有套用模板，佩服！以上纯属个人意见，仅供参考。呵呵！

小小amyUID: 2541111

2# 芊芊QQ
额。。。。我根本不知道什么是模板。。。。好像确实没有开头和结尾的样子。。。噗。。。我会改进的。。。。

nicoleqUID: 2626973

The dramatic rise in cheating among collage and university set alarms to outsider. Obviously, actions should be taken. The honor codes from Groveton demands students guarantee no cheat in their own study and promise to notify a faculty member if they suspect others have cheated. And it made the cheating number comes down from twenty one to fourteen, which seems to be delighting on decreasing the amount, showed the cheating number “fourteen” is still up high. The number doesn’t go down to minimum, which indicates the cheating phenomenon still thrive in its own way. It is doubtable that the declining of the cheating is incidentally led by the high qualified students who happen to don’t need to cheat. It is conceivable that various reasons cause cheating and variant measures which could work out as excellent as the honor codes does
should be lined up to deal with the cheating. Release the academic pressure on students; raise the proportion of class performance scores; foster personal honesty among the group and so on. Why just rely on the honor codes?


Then let’s get a close look on the honor codes itself. It ought not to take place of the traditional invigilating system totally due to its basic which refers the students don’t cheat and be willing to report on others improper behave while not everyone want to be the black sheep. What if the one who cheats is your friend? Few would destroy their friendship forever just for a exam. What’s worse, what if the whole group is cheating together. It turns out to be no one would notify any faculty. Classmates’ up to no good setting up on purpose could mislead others’ misfortune. So we can see students’ informing in honor codes maybe couldn’t work out well and cut down the cheating number distinctly. （提出的质疑挺好，只是表达方式的运用使得反驳无力）


As mentioned in the article, the honor codes is undergo only in Groveton. If is really effective, why not other schools imitate as soon as its carry out but waiting for so many years. A survey as supporting factor is used as well, which “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.” It doesn’t point out where does “the majority” come from. If the people who take the survey only regards to the students under the Groveton honor council, it also leads to withdraw of the persuasive power of the system.
（这段是说提供的证据不足吧。。。指出来哪里不足，，，然后加以反驳即可。。。其它就不用了
）
以下仅仅是个人观点，仅供参考~仅供~
  1.文章结构有待改进哦~这里只有三段。
  2.第一段有点像写Issue~不是Argument
  3.建议：看看范文~了解文章的结构和基本写法。
  4.开头段和结尾段都是总结性的，写法各异。
  5.中间每段一般是指出arguer的问题，
然后反驳（包括提出相反的可能或其它的质疑），再结尾总结一句。

nicoleqUID: 2626973

另外，每段空一行是格式，加油

小小amyUID: 2541111

5# nicoleq

谢谢指点~~~我赶作业赶的都来不及了额。。。提纲是归类为未分类还是i习作temp还是感想temp?