gre argument 242 详解

　　gre argument 242 详解

　　题目：Argument242 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 Grovetons， 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. Grovetons 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.

　　翻译

　　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的诚信知道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。

　　频次

　　在上个作文季度中，该题出现17次

　　逻辑思路

　　结论： 大家应该采用G的诚信制度

　　论据一：老制度的劣势

　　论据二：新制度的优势

　　首先，调查样本是否有代表性a majority of students指的G的大部分学生吗?他们能代表所有学校的学生吗?其次，调查者是Groveton honor council，它可能具有倾向性，即调查的设计有引导被调查者做出某种回答的嫌疑，学生未必会表达自己的真实想法。

　　攻击点四：Sample Difference

　　各个学校的情况不尽相同，即使honor code在G成功，在其它学校未必成功可能G有严密的监控措施或G的学生相比而言更honesty。

　　参考文章 ：提纲：1.差异概念的草率推广：没上报的作弊案例=没有作弊

　　2.没有与其他院校的横向比较

　　3.调查不科学.

　　In this argument， the arguer concludes that institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Grovetons. To support the conclusions， the arguer cites the statistics that the cases of cheating， which were reported， tailed away 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. However， the editorial flaws in several aspects.

　　Firstly， the editorial fails to avoid the flaw of the hasty generalization of different concepts. The arguer hastily equals the cases of cheating not reported and the facts that the students dont cheat. The difference between the two concepts is that maybe some students who cheat didnt be found out or the supervisor did not report their behavior. Perhaps the students help each others to cheat and do not notify faculty members others cheating behavior.

　　Secondly， the arguer does an incomplete comparison. A group of statistics was provided to convince us that the adoption of honor codes surly declined the cases of cheating which were reported. The arguer should tell us the result of the comparison with other colleges or universities as well as the variation. Perhaps other institutions that still adopt the traditional system decreased the number of cheating cases more sharply by using more advantaged electrical appliances.

　　Finally， the survey mentioned in the editorial is severely unreliable. The arguer fails to provide the evidence that the respondents are 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， the credibility of the survey is open to doubt given its loaded question. Students should be asked whether they would be less likely to cheat the honor code in place than with the traditional system rather than without.

　　To sum up， the arguer should provide the evidence of the decline of the cases of cheating rather than the cases only been reported， moreover， the arguer should compare the number of cheating cases with other colleges adopting the traditional system. Before been convinced， we should also see the survey the editorial mentioned being amended to be more scientific.

　　点评：开头不用重述原题 省下个两三分钟还可以多想下后面怎么写

　　avoid the flaw 没有这个用法。

　　手把手再教一下段落该怎么写/展开。

　　Firstly， the editorial fails to avoid the flaw of the hasty generalization of different concepts. The arguer hastily equals the cases of cheating not reported and the facts that the students dont cheat. The difference between the two concepts is that maybe some students who cheat didnt be found out or the supervisor did not report their behavior. Perhaps the students help each others to cheat and do not notify faculty members others cheating behavior.

　　改完了就是

　　Reduced reports of cheating does not necessarily suggest the decrease in such an activity. It is absolutely possible that students collaborate in active cheating and pretend nothing is going on at the same time. So behind the fourteen cases per year the actual number of annual cheating cases may well be fourty， or one hundred and fourty， nobody knows. The statistics does not justifiably reflect the truth.

　　而且 honor code之前那个report前面没有写students这个限定词 而honor code之后都是students reported 这里可以做文章。假如把这一点再加入刚才这个段落 那就非常丰满了。