ARGUMENT242【DIES IN FLAMES 0910G长线突破组】TASK I seiranzcc1

seiranzcc1UID: 2514067

时间不说了，连分析带写貌似好长时间。。。。看了草斑的实况讲解，但是还是感觉不太能抓得住关键的样子（我觉得我的逻辑都有问题了。。。），总之分析得。。。感觉没到位。
基础能力上，用词和造句啊我的心病，尤其是用词，重复很多，意思也没有怎么推敲，逮到就写，到后来写完又改了一下，但是总体来说也没什么大变化。
字数，草斑要求的600，我努力憋啊好像也只有500多的样子。。。。。
太打击了，有种什么都不懂的感觉~~我还得加油了啊~~
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This argument seems to be persuasive as it’s really well-presented, however, the assertion of the author that honor codes can effectively combat the rise of cheating in college and university students is not that reasoned. There are some obvious illogical points in the presentation, and at least, I have three reason to consider the author’s assertion not compelling enough.

First of all, a contrast between an old-fashioned system and honor codes is used to demonstrate the positive effects the new system has on the cheating phenomenon, yet I can hardly concede that the author’s conclusion is cogent because the statistics are unwarranted to illustrate the number of cheating students has really been reduced. From 30 to 21 and, finally, to 14, the change of the number is so slight that we might totally regard it as a normal oscillation of the amount of cheating people. Moreover, five years between the last two data is particularly a long time ,and it is not persuasive enough to demonstrate that the number of cheating has really fallen down, for it might be 30 or more in any of the years during this period.

The second reason why I cannot agree with the author is that the result of the survey conducted by Groveton’s honor council is not a compelling evidence to support that honor code should be adopted by other institutions. This survey was just about some interviews on Groveton’s students and the result was not objective, for answering that they will not cheat doesn’t mean that they really won’t. After all, no cheaters will admit that he is a fraud. The survey lacks necessary quantized or objective evidence to prove the effectiveness of honor codes.

Third, honor codes have just been applied in only one college--Groveton College. As a matter of fact, it does exist some differences among the average morality levels of students in various schools, and these differences might make great sense in the final result of the application of the new system. Honor codes lend a great amount of credence to students’ self-modification of morality, thus inevitably, the result it brings about might appear to vary from one school to another. Moreover, neither in a college or university where the rate of students’ cheating is rather low, nor in one the rate is quite high, we might see an apparent distinction between the old-fashioned system or honor codes, because an honest student won’t concern a lot whether they are monitored by teachers or other students, while one that will fail an exam without cheating is unlikely to give in to the appreciation to the credence the faculty lend to them. What’s more, it cannot be ensured that the students will certainly report to faculty members even if they have witnessed a cheating behavior.

Overall, as an honor code is a way which largely depends on the self-awareness of the true value of credence and academic endeavors, it might not have an expecting result the author looks forward. The given evidences are not warranted enough to illustrate the effectiveness of honor codes might have on reducing cheating rate. To ensure whether this new system can replace the old-fashioned one calls for a lot more objective surveys and evidences.
==============================================================================

可能还有些改的不细致的地方，大家宽恕我吧，阿门~

seiranzcc1UID: 2514067

完了。格式发错了。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。阿门，晕

joyceww88UID: 2599492

This argument seems to be persuasive as it’s really well-presented, however, the assertion of the author that honor codes can effectively combat the rise of cheating in college and university students is not that reasoned. There are some obvious illogical points in the presentation, and at least, I have three reason to consider the author’s assertion not compelling enough.（很多文章既列结论又写原因什么的，把题目简单的复述了一遍，很长。这个开头显得简单直接也明了得多。不过我自己选择了前者，不知道哪种更好）

First of all, a contrast between an old-fashioned system and honor codes is used to demonstrate the positive effects the new
system
has on the cheating phenomenon,yet
I can hardly concede that the author’s conclusion is cogent because the statistics are unwarranted to illustrate the number of cheating students has really been reduced. From 30 to 21 and, finally, to 14, the change of the number is so slight that we might totally regard it as a normal oscillation of the amount of cheating people. Moreover, five years between the last two data is particularly a long time ,and it is not persuasive enough to demonstrate that the number of cheating has really fallen down, for it might be 30 or more in any of the years during this period.（我觉得这一点指出的很好，仅有一头一尾的数据，忽视了中间的波动性解释的也很有道理。不过可以再写写就算下降了，也可能有别的原因，例如开了道德教育课啊，考试监考更严了啊什么的）

The second reason why I cannot agree with the author is that the result of the survey conducted by Groveton’shonor council is not a compelling evidence to support that honor code should be adopted by other institutions. This survey was just about some interviews on Groveton’s students and the result was not objective, for answering that they will not cheat doesn’t mean that they really won’t. After all, no cheaters will admit that he is a fraud. The survey lacks necessary quantized or objective evidence to prove the effectiveness of honor codes.（感觉上题中这一句可以说的更充分一些，挖掘更多。不过我也不知道到底怎么说，只是有这种感觉）

Third, honor codes have just been
applied
in only one college--Groveton College. As a matter of fact, it does exist（不及物） some differences among the average morality
levels of students in various schools, and these differences might make great sense in the final result of the application of the new
system. Honor codes lend a great amount of credence to students’ self-modification of morality, thus inevitably, the result it brings about might appear to vary from one school to another. （我觉得这两句话写得很好啊）Moreover, neither in a college or university where the rate of students’ cheating is rather low, nor in one the rate is quite high, we might see an apparent distinction between the old-fashioned system or honor codes, because an honest student won’t concern a lot whether they are monitored by teachers or other students, while one that will fail an exam without cheating is unlikely to give in to the appreciation to the credence the faculty lend to them. What’s more, it cannot be ensured that the students will
certainly
report to faculty members even if they have witnessed a cheating behavior.（最后一点类推错误这一点用让步句式写出来会不会顺一点）

Overall, as an honor code is a way which largely depends on the self-awareness of the true value of credence and academic endeavors, it might not have an expecting result the author looks forward. The given evidences are not warranted enough to illustrate the effectiveness of honor codes might have on reducing cheating rate.To ensure whether this new system can replace the old-fashioned one calls for a lot more objective surveys and evidences.（再具体写两句解决方法什么的会不会好一点，因为我记得xdf老师说argu要纠错，不仅仅是找错。作者最后提了，但是过于抽象了）

整篇文章看下来，很明显感觉作者水平高于我，所以我的观点是基于一个水平在作者之下人的视角的：作者用词不错，没有很多重复，虽然都不是那种所谓高级词汇，但是有变化又不是过于低级的词汇，并且个人感觉用的还是满恰当的。句型也是有长有短。
整体的脉络很清晰，很有条理。逻辑连接词（不知道是不是这个名，就是那些moreover, after all之类的）用的很勤，所以读下来觉得文章衔接的很好。并且，我觉得作者的攻击点选的很合理，进行攻击的时候给出的理由也很充分，仅仅觉得攻击的第二点说的少了点。
貌似我这个改的给作者帮助不大，毕竟感觉作者水平高出我不少，所以看起来欣赏远大于意见···没能提出什么有建设性的东西

seiranzcc1UID: 2514067

谢谢二位的修改，看了你们的修改还有文章，我觉得非常有收获！