0910G【Try Best】第二小组 argument242 by CharlesHu

CharlesHuUID: 2638360

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. Based on the comparison between the number of cheating cases when honor code was in place and the one when the old-fashioned system was working, and the survey conducted by the Groveton honor council showing most students are less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without, the writer asserted that the college and university should adopt honor code to replace an old-fashioned system for combating the cheating.
However, the problem is the two statistics in the comparison are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction that the cheating cases decreased after the honor code was adopted. According to the statement, there is an average of thirty cases of cheating per year when old-fashioned system was taking effect. But the writer was failed to give the average of cheating cases when the honor codes was adopted, instead, the author gave the number of cases of the first year of the honor code was adopted and the number of five years later after the honor code was took effect. Apparently, the statistics couldn't be compared and make readers know the vantage of the honor code exactly.
What’s more, the result of the survey is doubtable. As we know, usually people wouldn't like to tell their privacy that they might cheat in the test to the public. The writer was failed to give details of the survey, for example, the regulation of the investigation in order to protect the students’ privacy which can free the students from the dangerous of being honesty. So, the survey was not persuasive when we make further reflection.
In short, the comparison is unreasonable obviously and the result of survey needs to be reviewed, therefore the argument should not be admitted.

Stephy_tUID: 2642952

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. Based on the comparison between the number of cheating cases when honor code was in place and the one when the old-fashioned system was working, and the survey conducted by the Groveton honor council showing most students are less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without, the writer asserted that the college and university should adopt honor code to replace an old-fashioned system for combating the cheating.我个人更倾向于开头先描述题目后陈述个人观点，这样与下文展开讨论的衔接更好。
However, the problem is the two statistics in the comparison are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction that the cheating cases decreased after the honor code was adopted. According to the statement, there is an average of thirty cases of cheating per year when old-fashioned system was taking effect. But the writer was failed to give the average of cheating cases when the honor codes was adopted, instead, the author gave the number of cases of the first year of the honor code was adopted and the number of five years later after the honor code was took effect. Apparently, the statistics couldn't be compared and make readers know the vantage of the honor code exactly.

What’s more, the result of the survey is doubtable. As we know, usually people wouldn't like to tell their privacy that they might cheat in the test to the public. The writer was failed to give details of the survey, for example, the regulation of the investigation in order to protect the students’ privacy which can free the students from the dangerous of being honesty. So, the survey was not persuasive when we make further reflection.
In short, the comparison is unreasonable obviously and the result of survey needs to be reviewed, therefore the argument should not be admitted.

这篇argument没什么大问题,重要错误说到，但不够全，所以字数不够。还有别的一些问题需要展开讨论，比如说
1.author只顾得上比较和盲目效仿了但是没有考虑到the different qualities and ethical standards of the students between GC and other institutions；

2.即使假定它提供的数据是有力的，但作弊案件的降低不代表是新手段起了作用，学生信用度甚至根本没提高甚至更差。还有很多other possible factors contribute to the dropping number of cheating cases等.

可以再看看范文，全面抓住错误点。刚看了你的issue，同样是字数少，建议你把字数先写够，你的表述还是不错的，我发现凡是你知道的点论述起来清晰简洁也挺有说服力。写不够肯定是因为有某个方面没有考虑到，考虑全面的话一个点说几句字数也够了。
共勉！