0910AW 同主题写作第三期 ARGUMENT242 by lela900

lela900UID：2634833

因为要忙期末，时间很紧，提纲列的很草，抱歉！
题目：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."
错误:
1.
错误类比: 该制度在G学校有效未必在其他学校有效
2.
未知因素: 学生上报的可能有虚假成分,所以作弊下降迅速不可信
3.
调查的不可信,是由G自己开展的调查; 而且学生有可能虚报.

In this argument, the arguer attempts to make us convinced that an honor code which demands students not to cheat in academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member with a suspicion of others' cheating has been proved successful in Groveton College. To lend a firm support to his conclusion, he cites an obvious comparison between the old-fashioned system and the current one, lists the data about cases of cheating for the first year and five years later. It is well-presented, but it is not well-reasoned. A long examination could reveal how groundless the argument is.

To begin with, the arguer fails to take it for granted that the method used successfully in Groveton College (GC) will come to the top in any other institution. Without considering the differences in many respects between GC and any other institution, he cannot be presumptuous to say that an honor code pushed in GC will be still effective in many other universities and colleges. It is entirely possible that due to the dishonesty of students from some institutions and the complexion of coping with such system, the honor code will not be popular among other schools.

Furthermore, according to the contrast between the old-fashioned system used before and the new code, it is still doubtful to admit the new one is far more successful. The arguer claims that as soon as starting using such code for the first year, the number of cheating cases descends to 21, which is much less than 30 before. However, he ignores such fact that this result is reported from the students themselves. It may occur that students who always cheat in examinations have not been notified by their classmates because of an intimate friendship, even a complex relationship. What’s more, the students who like exposing others’ mistakes to teachers will not be welcomed among classmates. Based on that fact, it is hardly to say that the students will be honest to tell the truth. So considering such reasons above, it is inevitably to doubt the justness and fairness of the data announced by students.

Finally, even if assuming the honor code is effective in decreasing the rate of cheating, the survey conducted by the Groveton’s own council deserves suspicions. Maybe in order to spread the success of the honor code to the public, the council conceals some disadvantages, even makes a false data. Moreover, the announcement claimed by the students they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place is open to doubt. They might feel at easy with such a code because of the less probability of being caught while cheating and fail to tell the truth.


To sum up, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To better support the conclusion, the arguer should prove the success of honor code on several respects, not merely the rate of cheating cases drawn from students. In addition, he should also rule out the possibilities that the Groveton honor council is partial during the survey process. Only including these factors, the argument would have been logically acceptable.

lela900UID：2634833

不是吧~倒数第二段的字体咋了？

尾羽UID：2482591

It is well-presented, but it is not well-reasoned，这句话好~嘿嘿，收下

尾羽UID：2482591

In this argument, the arguer attempts to make us convinced that an honor code which demands students not to cheat in academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member with a suspicion of others' cheating has been proved successful[successfully] in Groveton College. To lend a firm support to his conclusion, he cites an obvious comparison between the old-fashioned system and the current one, lists the data about cases of cheating for the first year and five years later. It is well-presented, but it is not well-reasoned[这句话我收下了]. A long examination could reveal how groundless[这个词的意思是"having no ground or foundation"or"not based on reason or evidence"，所谓无根据的，可是原文里是有凭有据的，只是这些evidence and reason的逻辑和推理有问题，所以建议换成没有说服力或没有逻辑] the argument is.

To begin with, the arguer fails to take it for granted that the method used successfully in Groveton College (GC) will come to the top[好] in any other institution. Without considering the differences in many respects between GC and any other institution, he cannot be presumptuous[好词] to say that an honor code pushed[用在这里是有推广的意思吗？] in GC will be still effective in many other universities and colleges. It is entirely possible that due to the dishonesty of students from some institutions and the complexion of coping with such system, the honor code will not be popular among other schools.

Furthermore, according to the contrast between the old-fashioned system used before and the new code, it is still doubtful to admit the new one is far more successful. The arguer claims that as soon as starting using[这里是用现在分词“using”修饰ING伴随starting作状语吗？] such code for the first year, the number of cheating cases descends[好词] to 21, which is much less than 30 before. However, he[or she] ignores such fact that this result is reported from the students themselves. It may occur that students who always cheat in examinations have not been notified by their classmates because of an intimate friendship, even a complex relationship. What’s more, the students who like exposing others’ mistakes to teachers will not be welcomed among classmates. Based on that fact, it is hardly to say that the students will be honest to tell the truth. So considering such reasons above, it is inevitably[好词] to doubt the justness and fairness of the data announced by students.

Finally, even if[这个可以删掉] assuming the honor code is effective in decreasing the rate of cheating, the survey conducted by the Groveton’s own council deserves suspicions. Maybe in order to spread the success of the honor code to the public, the council conceals some disadvantages, even makes a false data. Moreover, the announcement claimed by the students they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place is open to doubt. They might feel at easy with such a code because of the less probability of being caught while cheating and fail to tell the truth.


To sum up, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To better support the conclusion, the arguer should prove the success of honor code on several respects, not merely the rate of cheating cases drawn from students. In addition, he[or she] should also rule out the possibilities that the Groveton honor council is partial during the survey process. Only including these factors, the argument would have been logically acceptable.

整体上，结构很好，观点明确，也用了不少高级词。每一段的首句都清楚的说明该段攻击的目标，这点我要学习！
挑不出很明显的毛病，有疑问的两个地方，不一定是有问题，只是我自己不是很明白，也算是请教了哈

crepuscularlywUID：2645654

终于改好了~