Argument242[快刀杀鸡]7/16 作业 by 葡萄熟了

葡萄熟了UID: 2638802

"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."

为解决最近上报的大学生作弊现象显著增加的问题，大学和学院应该采取和Groveton学院类似的诚信制度，该制度要求学生同意在学业中不作弊，并且当他们怀疑别人作弊的时候通知老师。Groveton的诚信制度代替了原有的学生被老师严密监视的老体制，在老体制中平均每年有30起作弊被上报。该制度被证明成功的多：在它实施的第一年，学生上报了21起作弊；五年后，这一数值下降到了14起。而且，在最近一次由Groveton诚信委员会组织的调查中，大部分学生说有了诚信制度他们更加不太可能作弊。


攻击点：
1.制度成功与否，几个简单的数字并不能说明问题。老体制中，采取教员监视，这样一旦作弊被发现一律上报。而如果采用这种新方法，考试期间，很少能有人一边做题一边留心注意别人是否作弊，即使发现有人作弊，学生上报的几率不可能达到百分之百。换句话说，Groveton学院
上报的作弊的人数未必是真实的数字，一般情况下只是一不部分人被举报。所以说这些数字也不能说明它是more successful
2.退一步说，即使这些数字是真实的，这个制度又会引伸出很多问题，容易被人利用。首先 学生上报前提是 怀疑有人作弊，上报之后 faculty得做相关调查，这也不排除有故意编造陷害与自己不和的人， 同样这种制度也会使同学之间互相猜疑，造成同学之间的不信任，破坏同学关系及学习环境。
3.最后文章提到，一调查显示大部分同学表示在这种诚信体制 下他们更不太可能作弊。首先我们的先弄清楚，作弊本来就是极小一部分人才会采取的手段。如果一个人能被一张声明约束自己的行为的话，那他也能用自己的道德观约束自己。也就是说，不作弊的人不管是否有这种诚信体制，他们都不会作弊。而作弊的人相反在没有老师的监督之下会更加猖狂
文章构造主体:
1.总结概括题目中的逻辑思路，并提出其有逻辑错误
2.首先Groveton学院的数据并不一定是真实情况的反映
3.即使其是真实情况的反映，这个honor code 体制也未必好
4. 关于文中提到的那个调查，也不能证明这种办法就真的有效。
5.总结建议

This article concludes that facing the increasing number of cheating students in colleges and universities, these institutions should adopt honor code which asks students not to cheat in their academic endeavor and inform the faculty on others’ cheating. The author also cites a survey conducted by Groveton honor council in which most students indicate that they would less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without. The argument is well presented, however I find it not thoroughly well-reasoned.



First of all, the reducing numbers of cases of cheating in Groveton College the author cites are not convincing enough to demonstrate that the use of honor codes is successful. Indeed, the reported numbers are declining, however that is not necessarily due to fewer cheating students. Without any suspicion, the student who is caught cheating by a teacher must be reported to the authority of the school by the teacher. Whereas, under the system of honor codes, if one student is caught cheating by his or her classmates rather than a teacher, then the student is more likely to be connived. And also, during the exam, few people have the extra effort to pay attention to others’ behavior.
On the contrary, teachers who monitor the students in the exam are expected nothing but preventing them from cheating.


Second, even assuming that the numbers do really reflect the truth, the new system is not necessarily to be successful. The author fail to realize the negative effect it will have on the students. Consider a student who is prosecuted of cheating, for example. He or she must ponder who the informer is. The suspicion, no matter right or wrong, will be harmful to the harmony of the classmate ship. What is worse, anything but exaggeration, this method can even induce bribery on campus, which seriously corrupts the morals and makes outcome against our original intention of education.

As for the survey the article cites, the indication about no cheating of majority of students dose not means that there will be less people practicing by fraud during tests; after all, no matter more or less students play a trick in examination than before, it is always the minority who turn to cheating. The one who can be constrained by a promise can be constrained by conscience. In other words, people who do not cheat under the new system did not cheat under the old one in which students were monitored closely by teachers. On the contrary, the one did not cheat before may behaves differently now.


In sum, the statement is logically flawed and thus unconvincing as it stands. To enhance it, the author needs either to catch up to a more effective proposal or provide more convincing evident that the honor codes really help.

ajohnaresUID: 2661147

首先，我想说关于攻击honor code这一措施的问题。我个人觉得最好不要用大段的文章来攻击你认为这一措施的弊病。Argument考的是逻辑，要求找出的是逻辑错误。参见考试系统中屏幕上所呈现的Argument作文要则中第一条与第二条：
这里没有要求你同意或反对论点中的任何一条陈述。
你应该对论点的推理过程提出自己的分析。
所以我觉得与其论证为什么honor code不会导致数据上的减少，不如讨论可能有其他因素导致这一现象。
而且在攻击这一措施时，第二段掺入了过多个人假设的成分，我觉得这是不可取的。
个人意见，以上。

This article concludes that facing the increasing number of cheating students in colleges and universities, these institutions should adopt honor code which asks students not to cheat in their academic endeavor and inform the faculty on others’ cheating. The author also cites a survey conducted by Groveton honor council in which most students indicate that they would less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without. The argument is well presented, however I find it not thoroughly well-reasoned.



First of all, the reducing numbers of cases of cheating in Groveton College the author cites are not convincing enough to demonstrate that the use of honor codes is successful. Indeed, the reported numbers are declining, however that is not necessarily due to fewer cheating students. Without any suspicion, the student who is caught cheating by a teacher must be reported to the authority of the school by the teacher. Whereas, under the system of honor codes, if one student is caught cheating by his or her classmates rather than a teacher, then the student is more likely to be connived（不需用被动）. And also, during the exam, few people have the extra effort to pay attention to others’ behavior.
On the contrary, teachers who monitor the students in the exam are expected nothing but preventing them from cheating.


Second, even assuming that the numbers do really （可去掉）reflect the truth, the new system is not necessarily to be successful. The author fail to realize the negative effect it will have on the students. Consider a student who is prosecuted of cheating, for example. He or she must ponder who the informer is. The suspicion, no matter right or wrong, will be harmful to the harmony of the classmate ship. What is worse, anything but exaggeration, this method can even induce bribery on campus, which seriously corrupts the morals and makes outcome against our original intention of education.

As for the survey the article cites, the indication about no cheating of majority of students dose（does） not means that there will be less people practicing by fraud（感觉还是cheat好，不是欺骗是作弊） during tests; after all, no matter more or less students play a trick in examination than before, it is always the minority who turn to cheating. The one who can be constrained by a promise can be constrained by conscience.（这句不太明白：如果一个人能被一张声明约束自己的行为的话，那他也能用自己的道德观约束自己。） In other words, people who do not cheat under the new system did not cheat under the old one in which students were （was）monitored closely by teachers. On the contrary, the one did not cheat before may behaves differently now.
（这一段都是在讲对survey的攻击，其实survey还有其他几个攻击点，不妨再详述下。
此外，范文里有一句关于这一角度的攻讦，与君共赏：
Hypothetical predictions about one’s future behavior are inherently less reliable than reports of proven behavior）

In sum, the statement is logically flawed and thus unconvincing as it stands. To enhance it(好像有点别扭，是模版里的话吗？是的话就没问题~), the author needs either to catch up to（“赶上,逮捕,处罚” 不是想表达这个意思吧）a more effective proposal or provide more convincing evident that the honor codes really help（contribute）.

总之全文看下来，文笔很流畅，我能找到的语言问题也寥寥无几，不过当然，我的语言很成问题……
我感觉你对A和I区分的不是很清楚，还是尽量不要把A写成I吧，虽然有时候写出来的东西感觉冷冰冰的，但是攻击起来更锋利。就这么多。