ARGUMENT242【DIES IN FLAMES 0910G长线突破组】TASK I tuziduidui

tuziduiduiUID: 2599524

头一次写，请多指教！

The argument is well presented,but not thoroughly well reasoned. The arguer thought the honor code similar to Groveton should be adopted in other universities and colleges, if they want to reduce the cheating phenomenon. The argument for reducing it through the honor code seems logical.

However, people need notice that adopting honor code have two pre-conditions: students agree not to cheat and students notify teachers others’ cheating behavior. Actually people do not know whether students agree about it. And, when the honor code is showed to students, they probably think teacher does not trust them. At the same time, notification other people has too much uncertain factors. For example, when one student finds his best friend is cheating, he probably will not report his friend to the faculty, because their friendship. Different universities or colleges have their own culture. In some places, they have rare cheating affairs, so the honor code will not be useful to them. The honor code maybe shows some benefits in Groveton College but not means there will be the same situation in other colleges. Thus, adopting honor code has some deficiencies.

Except those deficiencies, the arguer made a contrast about the number of the reported cheating cases after that the honor code was used. The arguer showed the amount of reported cheating has reduced from thirty to twenty-one at the first year of the honor code was used. But the twenty-one cases were just reported by students,the arguer did not reveal how much cases were reported by teachers, maybe ten,twenty or more.In this condition, twenty-one cannot compare with thirty. This change cannot support the honor code that has improved the cheating situation. After this, the statistical results in the second year, the third year and the fourth year were not given. So these data cannot fully support arguer's conclusion.

Finally,the survey is also untenable. At first, people who did the survey are unclear although arguer said they were a majority of students. There is one probability that students who are willing to study and will not need to cheat are more interested in responding the survey. At the mean time, the organization, which did the survey,is not neutral. The questions maybe misdirect the responders.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discusses in the body part. It is very complicated when the honor code is adopted. The arguer should consider it more comprehensively. Moreover, to evaluate the arguer's standpoint more authentic, more data and information about the comparison and survey need to be listed.

tuziduiduiUID: 2599524

终于写完了这第一篇，写之前觉得有很多可以写，可真正开始动笔就完全是另外一回事了。而且，第一遍写出来的时候，我发现我是满篇的we啊什么的，跟别人的一比，马上傻了，于是一阵狂改。我觉得我可能还是不是特别清楚gre写作的句子啊词啊什么的用法，需要努力学习。
第一篇还真是奇惨无比........
请广泛提意见，任何不足都请提出，多谢了！

ananbeatgreUID: 2606279

恩 我们是一组的

明天来改

我的也很烂

互相指教啦

winning1030UID: 2538401

1# tuziduidui
The argument is well presented,but not thoroughly well reasoned. The arguer thought the honor code similar to Groveton should be adopted in other universities and colleges, if they want to reduce the cheating phenomenon. The argument for reducing it through the honor code seems logical.

However, people need notice that adopting honor code(我觉得应该是确保honor code 有效而不是仅仅实施honor code) have（has） two pre-conditions(preconditions): students agree not to cheat and students notify teachers others’ cheating behavior. Actually people do not know whether students agree about it. And, when the honor code is showed to students(表达不地道，就用when the honor code is conducted), they probably think teacher(teachers) does(do) not trust them. At the same time, notification(notifying) other people has too much uncertain factors. For example, when one student finds his best friend is cheating, he probably will not report his friend to the faculty, because (because of) their friendship. (缺少过渡，加moreover)Different universities or colleges have their own culture（cultures）. In some places, they have rare cheating affairs, so the honor code will not be useful to them. (没有解释清楚为什么，而这又和学校文化有什么关系)The honor code maybe shows some benefits in Groveton College but not means there will be the same situation in other colleges.（楼主考虑到了错误类比这个错误，但是楼主在论证的时候没有说这个不同的情况是怎么在校园文化里表现出来的。我在看这段时有点糊涂。同时The honor code maybe shows some benefits in Groveton College ，楼主如果第一个论证段就假设honor code 有效，那随后可批驳的空间就小了，因为它的有效本身就可质疑。）Thus, adopting honor code has some deficiencies.
Except those deficiencies, the arguer made a contrast about the number(numbers) of the reported cheating cases after that the honor code was used (in one and five years) .The arguer showed the amount of reported cheating has reduced from thirty to twenty-one at the first year of the honor code was used. But the twenty-one cases were just reported by students,the arguer did not reveal how much cases were reported by teachers(楼主缺少前提，就是在实行honor code的情况下，老师也在监督，但我不知道这个前提是否存在，我看了一个 斑斑给ananbeargre的修改里，好像有提到说这个老师的监督也是存在的。可是我觉得奇怪，题目里面不是replace了么？。。。), maybe ten,twenty or more.In this condition, twenty-one cannot （be）compare with thirty. This change cannot support the honor code that has improved the cheating situation. After this, the statistical results in the second year, the third year and the fourth year were not given. So these data cannot fully support arguer's conclusion. (楼主这里想得很好，因为只给了第一年和第五年的数据，也许其中的三年都是持续增加或者有强烈波动的，而第五年的数据是个例外，从这样的数据里我们也无法判断honor code是否真的有效了。非常喜欢这个攻击！！！希望楼主可以把我说的原因加入文章，这个可以更充分的论证为什么数据不可靠，这样就不会显得楼主的结尾有点仓促了)

Finally, the survey is also untenable. At first, people who did the survey are unclear although arguer said they were a majority of students.
There is one probability that students who are willing to study and will not need to cheat are more interested in responding the survey.（楼主想表达的样本不是random sample吧，这个例子很特别，比我考虑得多。大部分人都质疑的是人们是否诚实作答，但是楼主也考虑到了样本的随机取样问题，不错哦）At the mean time, the organization, which did the survey,is not neutral.
（不要用绝对的语气）The questions maybe misdirect the responders.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discusses in the body part. It is very complicated when the honor code is adopted.（觉得表达不妥善，觉得意思太宽泛，指向的含义太广。没有指明是什么在H C实施后变复杂了。而且我怀疑楼主的意思，是指分析HC是否有效果很难，还是实施起来很难） The arguer should consider it more comprehensively. Moreover, to evaluate the arguer's standpoint more authentic, more data and information about the comparison and survey need to be listed.


楼主想的还是很好，和大家的很互补哦～很多没有想到的点都在楼主文章里看到了，特别是数据那个，支持！但是，觉得楼主指出错误之后没有展开攻击，就觉白白浪费了那么好的进攻机会。嗯，楼主有没有觉得自己的中文意思其实很清楚，但英文表达却表达不出来。不过这样的问题我也大大的存在，一起克服吧～

ananbeatgreUID: 2606279

The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly well reasoned. The arguer thought the honor code similar to Groveton should be adopted in other universities and colleges, if they want to reduce the cheating phenomenon（我觉得好像用phenomenon不太对哎，要不还是cases吧）. The argument for reducing it through the honor code seems logical（illogical）.（LZ第一段并没有把argument的观点说的很清楚，只是说了要推广，并没有提到A里是如何来支持他的观点的，其实我也不是很清楚是不是要把这些说清楚~）

However, people need notice that adopting honor code have（has） two pre-conditions: students agree not to cheat and students notify teachers others’ cheating behavior. Actually people do not know whether students agree about it. And, when the honor code is showed to students, they probably think teacher does not trust them（我觉得诚信制度恰恰是更加信任学生的表现呢，这里不对吧~）. At the same time, notification（notifying） other people has too much uncertain factors. For example, when one student finds his best friend is （删）cheating, he probably will not report his friend to the faculty, because（of） their friendship. Different universities or colleges have their own culture. In some places, they have（there are） rare cheating affairs, so the honor code will not be useful to them（这里不能说没有作用吧，可以说less useful）. The honor code maybe shows some benefits in Groveton College but not means there will be the same situation in other colleges. （这和LZ之前段首的TS不符哦，这段不是讲那两个前提条件的点的么，咋忽然又跳到情况不适用其他地方这个点了呢，有点混乱了）Thus, adopting honor code has some deficiencies.

Except those deficiencies, the arguer made a contrast about the number of the reported cheating cases after that the honor code was used. The arguer showed the amount of reported cheating has reduced from thirty to twenty-one at the first year of the honor code was used. But the twenty-one cases were just reported by students, the arguer did not reveal how much（many） cases were reported by teachers, maybe ten, twenty or（加个even更好，嘿） more（总觉得有点问题，这句单列出来吧，打个句号再It’s maybe。。）. In this condition, twenty-one cannot compare (compared) with thirty. This change cannot support the honor code that (that the honor code) has improved the cheating situation. After this, the statistical results in the second year, the third year and the fourth year were not given(好耶！我怎么没想到！但是我觉得这里后面可以在拓展一下，not given 然后导致什么什么。。。不然总觉得这句子没写完，哈哈). So these data cannot fully support arguer's conclusion.

Finally, the survey is also untenable. At first, people who did the survey are unclear although the arguer said they were a majority of students. There is one probability that students who are willing to study and will not need to cheat are more interested in responding the survey. At the mean time, the organization, which did the survey, is not neutral. The questions maybe misdirect the responders.(这段关于survey的那个调查者成分的点，非常好！可是就是觉得没有完全展开写，说完这个可能性之后，可以再接着说这种可能会导致什么。。。。。。呃，然后就是斑斑说了，我们不要去攻击这个调查本身是否有诱导被调查者这点。而是从调查本身的数字的这些客观东西去攻击。呃。。。我也犯了这个错呢。。哈哈，而且就算这个可以攻击，你也不能就1句话就带过了，得展开一下哦)

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discusses in the body part. It is very complicated when the honor code is adopted（这。。。啥意思啊、？呃。。。我们应该攻击的是它是否否有题干的效果吧。。。复不复杂没关系的吧。就算它复杂了，可是它要是有效了！那。。。）. The arguer should consider it more comprehensively. Moreover, to evaluate the arguer's standpoint more authentic, more data and information about the comparison and survey need to be listed.



呃。。。攻击点选的很好！！！！！就是觉着写的不是很充分。LZ应该把每个点都更加充分的分析一下，不要每次只指出攻击点，或者只是提出反例而不加以分析和论证就不写啦，恩一起加油啊~~~