▶ Your Answer :
Citing
the lowered number of cheating after launching the honor code, the author here
tries to conclude that all schools should implement the same policy. However,
this argument relies on a series of unproven assumptions, thus is not plausible
as it stands. Rather, more thoughts and data about several questions should be
provided to support the claim, regarding perceptions of cheating, dropping
number trend, and reported cheating types.
First
of all, the writer should clarify whether the definition of cheating is
consistent between the teachers and the students. If the perception of the
cheating is different between the two groups, the claim about drop of the
cheating cases should not be reliable. Common sense can tell us that teachers
would have more keen eyes on students’ cheating than students. Also, students might
not be effectively recognizant of other cheating attempts because their
priority in a test day is not catching cheaters, but answering the questions on
a test sheet. Therefore, perhaps students may only regard explicit cheating as
a cheating (e.g., looking at other students’ answer sheets), while teachers may
regard secretly implemented cheating as a cheating (e.g., writing down
information on a tiny piece of paper and looking at it hiding under the hand).
In
addition to the clarification issue, the trend of cheating numbers reported for
the five years should be thoroughly provided. The claim mentioned that the
reported number of cheating was 21 in the first year, and which decreased as 14
cases after five years. One big question here is that whether or not the
dropping has been consistent over the five years. Perhaps the case soared on
the second or third year. If it is the case, one can conclude that the honor
code also has a limitation. Thus, the writer should provide the numbers of the reported
cheating cases over the five year time frame support the claim.
Lastly,
the writer should answer this question as well: was there any difference between
the reported cheating types from students and teachers? If the types of
cheating are similar, we can say that honor code can replace the teacher
monitoring system. However, if the reported cases were different, and the cases
reported from the honor code system does not include the cases from teachers
monitoring system, the validity of the honor code should be reconsidered.
In
sum, even though implementing honor code seems to solve the cheating problems
more effectively than teacher monitor system, the author’s claim is not cogent because
it should answer more questions to better evaluate the assertion. The questions
include, but are not limited to: Was the dropping numbers consistent over the
five years? Is the definition of cheating clearly perceived by teachers and
students? and Was there any difference between the reported cheating types from
honor code system and teacher monitor system. By answering those questions and
providing appropriate data, the claim should be more persuasive to decision
makers. |