0910AW 同主题写作第三期 ARGUMENT242 by iloveusa2009

iloveusa2009UID：2650557

242. 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."


Basing on the evidence of declining number of cases of cheating, the survey of Groveton honor council, and the assumption that the great success of GC could be widespread by the same regulation, the newspaper editorial suggests that other colleges or universities should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton college(GC)'s. However, close inspection of the argument reveals several logical problems, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the declining number of cases of cheating does not indicate that the honor code is acting on it. Perhaps many students who always cheat at examinations have covered their tracks well so that they avoid to be caught in the act and be reported in test. Besides, it is entirely possible that students might not be willing to report cheating behavior of others because certain compromise has been established among the students in order to cope with the regulation of GC.

Secondly, the survey of Groveton honor council which a majority of students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without cannot reflect the honest opinion of those who attempt to cheat in the future. Common sense tells us that no one will show his or her cheating motive before doing so. Moreover, those who always get away with cheating would also like to conceal their motivation of cheating in order to slow the debut of new cheating-prevent measures. Moreover, the respondents of the survey will most like to be those who had no cheating experience before and will never cheat at academic area. Only if the study could provide more accurate data and relative information, it would not serve to validate that the result of survey indicate the real situation.

Thirdly, even if the honor code is especially effective in GC, the author also unfairly assumes that what is true in GC would ensure the similar result in other colleges or universities. No evidences show that students in other colleges will present the same behavior pattern when they face the honor codes. Perhaps other colleges' students will always draw together to confront the regulation of university while GC's students prefer to sneak on each other. Moreover, it is entirely possible that other colleges’ managers would choose to trust the direct supervision of faculty member rather than the denunciation among students. Without accounting for possible differences between GC and other universities, the author cannot convince me that honor codes will also make great success outside GC.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must show more information about other colleges' academic and cultural atmosphere to prove that they need Groveton's honor code rather than old-fashioned system in which students were closely monitored by teachers. To better assess the argument we would also know the relative proportion of respondents and the total amount of the survey of Groveton honor council.