Argument242 @@A DREAM @@小组第2次作业 bynicoleq(廿廿)

nicoleqUID: 2626973

In this argument, the arguer concludes that institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton’s. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the statistics that the cases of cheating, which were reported, since the honor code was adopted. Moreover, the arguer manifests a survey, which proved that a majority of students thought they are less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without. At first glance, the argument might be somehow reasonable, but close scrutiny reveal that this argument is unconvincing.

In the first place, the arguer fails to avoid the flaw of the hasty generalization. The arguer equals the case of students agrees not to cheat and the fact they do actually. Reduced reports of cheating do not necessarily suggest the decrease in such an activity. It is absolutely possible that students collaborate in active cheating and pretend nothing at the same time. So behind the "fourteen cases per year" the actual number of annual cheating cases may well be forty, or one hundred and forty, even more, nobody knows. The statistics does not justifiably reflect the truth. Besides, suspecting is just subjective. It will affect psychology of a student who is counted as cheating while he or she does not cheat.

In the second place, the arguer does an incomplete comparison. The arguer provides no assurances that carry out the honor code will far more successful. One, the statistic of report by students is unnecessarily true. Maybe, some student is proficient in cheating lead to can not discover by others or they actually notice other student cheating but not to notify while they are intimate friend. Two, compare the report of first year to the report of five years later is unscientific. How about second year? Maybe, the statistic of report by students increases rapidly. Without ruling out such possibilities, I cannot accept the arguer’s point.

In the third place, the survey mentioned in the editorial is severely unreliable. The arguer fails to provide any information concerning the respondents is representative. It is entirely possible that the students who are willing to reject the behavior of cheating are more interested in responding the survey. Besides, it is also entirely possible that the statistic of cheat is decrease but the rate is increase while the sum of students is decrease or not after five years later. For the matter, the arguer’s conclusion is unconvincing.

Last but least, institutions are not all the same. It is not successful practice the honor code in other college while it is prove far more successful in Groveton. Maybe, Groveton’s students are more sincere. Without ruling out such possibility, I cannot accept the arguer’s point that institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton’s.

112810asUID: 2646494

In this argument, the arguer concludes that institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton’s. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the statistics that the cases of cheating, which were reported, since the honor code was adopted. Moreover, the arguer manifests a survey, which proved that a majority of students thought they are less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without. At first glance, the argument might be somehow reasonable, but close scrutiny reveal that this argument is unconvincing.[b] (我这两天看了篇对A开头的感想，他们对ETS官方范文和北美范文做了研究，发现好作文的开头基本都不是去总结逻辑错误，而且官方范文的rater评论貌似也是不赞成总结，第一啰嗦，第二如果逻辑寻找的不恰当会扣分，一般总结的都是4分，我倍受打击)

In the first place, the arguer fails to avoid the flaw of the hasty generalization. The arguer equals the case of students agrees not to cheat and the fact they do actually. Reduced reports of cheating do not necessarily suggest the decrease in such an activity. It is absolutely possible that students collaborate in active cheating and pretend nothing at the same time. So behind the "fourteen cases per year" the actual number of annual cheating cases may well be forty, or one hundred and forty, even more, nobody knows. The statistics does not justifiably reflect the truth. Besides, suspecting is just subjective. It will affect psychology of a student who is counted as cheating while he or she does not cheat.

In the second place, the arguer does an incomplete comparison. The arguer provides no assurances that carry out the honor code will far more successful. One, the statistic of report by students is unnecessarily（这个词不对吧？） true. Maybe, some student is proficient in cheating lead to can not discover by others or they actually notice other student cheating but not to notify while they are intimate friend. Two, compare the report of first year to the report of five years later is unscientific. How about second year? Maybe, the statistic of report by students increases rapidly. Without ruling out such possibilities, I cannot accept the arguer’s point.（连词不对）

In the third place, the survey mentioned in the editorial is severely unreliable. The arguer fails to provide any information concerning the respondents is representative. It is entirely possible that the students who are willing to reject the behavior of cheating are more interested in responding the survey. Besides, it is also entirely possible that the statistic of cheat is decrease but the rate is increase while the sum of students is decrease or not after five years later. For the matter, the arguer’s conclusion is unconvincing（这句和第一句对应吗？）.

Last but least, institutions are not all the same. It is not successful practice the honor code in other college while it is prove far more successful in Groveton. Maybe, Groveton’s students are more sincere. Without ruling out such possibility, I cannot accept the arguer’s point that institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton’s.（问个问题，这一段是结尾段？？）

感觉逻辑不是很清晰，主要在于你对错误攻击不够。你的最后一段呢？？？？？？？

robertxjUID: 2645881

In this argument, the arguer concludes that institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton’s. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the statistics that the cases of cheating, which were reported, since the honor code was adopted. Moreover, the arguer manifests a survey, which proved that a majority of students thought they are less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without. At first glance, the argument might be somehow reasonable, but close scrutiny reveal that this argument is unconvincing.

In the first place, the arguer fails to avoid the flaw of the hasty generalization. The arguer equals the case of students agrees not to cheat and the fact they do actually. Reduced reports of cheating do not necessarily suggest the decrease in such an activity. It is absolutely possible that students collaborate in active cheating and pretend nothing at the same time. So behind the "fourteen cases per year" the actual number of annual cheating cases may well be forty, or one hundred and forty, even more, nobody knows. The statistics does not justifiably reflect the truth. Besides, suspecting is just subjective. It will affect psychology of a student who is counted as cheating while he or she does not cheat.

In the second place, the arguer does an incomplete comparison. The arguer provides no assurances that carry out the honor code will far more successful. One, the statistic of report by students is unnecessarily true. Maybe, some student is proficient in cheating lead to can not discover by others or they actually notice other student cheating but not to notify while they are intimate friend. Two, compare the report of first year to the report of five years later is unscientific. How about second year? Maybe, the statistic of report by students increases rapidly. Without ruling out such possibilities, I cannot accept the arguer’s point.

In the third place, the survey mentioned in the editorial is severely unreliable. The arguer fails to provide any information concerning the respondents is representative. It is entirely possible that the students who are willing to reject the behavior of cheating are more interested in responding the survey. Besides, it is also entirely possible that the statistic of cheat is decrease but the rate is increase while the sum of students is decrease or not after five years later. For the matter, the arguer’s conclusion is unconvincing.

Last but least, institutions are not all the same. It is not successful practice the honor code in other college while it is prove far more successful in Groveton. Maybe, Groveton’s students are more sincere. Without ruling out such possibility, I cannot accept the arguer’s point that institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton’s.
恩，对于我目前的水平。。。觉得写得不错。。。呵呵，条例挺清楚的，每个理由也还不错，文字也很流畅，鼓励一个~

nicoleqUID: 2626973

修改后：
In this argument, the arguer concludes that institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton’s. To substantiate this claim, the arguer provides the statistics that the cases of cheating, which were reported, since the honor code was adopted. Moreover, the arguer manifests a survey, which proved that a majority of students thought they are less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without. At first glance, the argument might be somehow reasonable, but close scrutiny reveal that this argument is unconvincing.

In the first place, the arguer fails to avoid the flaw of the hasty generalization. The arguer equals the case of students agrees not to cheat and the fact they do actually. Reduced reports of cheating do not necessarily suggest the decrease in such an activity. It is absolutely possible that students collaborate in active cheating and pretend nothing at the same time. So behind the "fourteen cases per year" the actual number of annual cheating cases may well be forty, or one hundred and forty, even more, nobody knows. The statistics does not justifiably reflect the truth. Besides, suspecting is just subjective. It will affect psychology of a student who is counted as cheating while he or she does not cheat.

In the second place, the arguer does an incomplete comparison. The arguer provides no assurances that carry out the honor code will far more successful. One is that the statistic of report by students is unnecessarily true. Maybe, some student is proficient in cheating lead to can not discover by others or they actually notice other student cheating but not to notify while they are intimate friend. Two is that compare the report of first year to the report of five years later is unscientific. How about second year? Maybe, the statistic of report by students increases rapidly. Without ruling out such possibilities, I cannot accept the arguer’s point.

In the third place, the survey mentioned in the editorial is severely unreliable. The arguer fails to provide any information concerning the respondents is representative. It is entirely possible that the students who are willing to reject the behavior of cheating are more interested in responding the survey. Besides, it is also entirely possible that the statistic of cheat is decrease but the rate is increase while the sum of students is decrease or not after five years later. For the matter, the arguer’s conclusion is unconvincing.

Last but not least, institutions are not all the same. It is not successful practice the honor code in other college while it is prove far more successful in Groveton. Maybe, Groveton’s students are more sincere. Without ruling out such possibility, I cannot accept the arguer’s point that institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton’s.

To sum up, the arguer’s conclusion about institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton’s is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the arguer must provide more evidence. To better assess the problem, I would also need to know the sum of the Groveton student.