gre argument 242 詳解

　　題目：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.

　　翻譯

　　為解決最近上報的大學生作弊現象顯著增加的問題，大學和學院應該采取和Groveton學院類似的誠信制度，該制度要求學生同意在學業中不作弊，并且當他們懷疑別人作弊的時候通知老師。Groveton的誠信知道代替了原有的學生被老師嚴密監視的老體制，在老體制中平均每年有30起作弊被上報。該制度被證明成功的多：在它實施的第一年，學生上報了21起作弊;五年后，這一數值下降到了14起。而且，在最近一次由Groveton誠信委員會組織的調查中，大部分學生說有了誠信制度他們更加不太可能作弊。

　　頻次

　　在上個作文季度中，該題出現17次

　　邏輯思路

　　結論： 大家應該采用G的誠信制度

　　論據一：老制度的劣勢

　　論據二：新制度的優勢

　　首先，調查樣本是否有代表性a majority of students指的G的大部分學生嗎?他們能代表所有學校的學生嗎?其次，調查者是Groveton honor council，它可能具有傾向性，即調查的設計有引導被調查者做出某種回答的嫌疑，學生未必會表達自己的真實想法。

　　攻擊點四：Sample Difference

　　各個學校的情況不盡相同，即使honor code在G成功，在其它學校未必成功可能G有嚴密的監控措施或G的學生相比而言更honesty。

　　參考文章 ：提綱：1.差異概念的草率推廣：沒上報的作弊案例=沒有作弊

　　2.沒有與其他院校的橫向比較

　　3.調查不科學.

　　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.

　　點評：開頭不用重述原題 省下個兩三分鐘還可以多想下后面怎么寫

　　avoid the flaw 沒有這個用法。

　　手把手再教一下段落該怎么寫/展開。

　　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之前那個report前面沒有寫students這個限定詞 而honor code之后都是students reported 這里可以做文章。假如把這一點再加入剛才這個段落 那就非常豐滿了。

　　gre argument 242 詳解

　　題目：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.

　　翻譯

　　為解決最近上報的大學生作弊現象顯著增加的問題，大學和學院應該采取和Groveton學院類似的誠信制度，該制度要求學生同意在學業中不作弊，并且當他們懷疑別人作弊的時候通知老師。Groveton的誠信知道代替了原有的學生被老師嚴密監視的老體制，在老體制中平均每年有30起作弊被上報。該制度被證明成功的多：在它實施的第一年，學生上報了21起作弊;五年后，這一數值下降到了14起。而且，在最近一次由Groveton誠信委員會組織的調查中，大部分學生說有了誠信制度他們更加不太可能作弊。

　　頻次

　　在上個作文季度中，該題出現17次

　　邏輯思路

　　結論： 大家應該采用G的誠信制度

　　論據一：老制度的劣勢

　　論據二：新制度的優勢

　　首先，調查樣本是否有代表性a majority of students指的G的大部分學生嗎?他們能代表所有學校的學生嗎?其次，調查者是Groveton honor council，它可能具有傾向性，即調查的設計有引導被調查者做出某種回答的嫌疑，學生未必會表達自己的真實想法。

　　攻擊點四：Sample Difference

　　各個學校的情況不盡相同，即使honor code在G成功，在其它學校未必成功可能G有嚴密的監控措施或G的學生相比而言更honesty。

　　參考文章 ：提綱：1.差異概念的草率推廣：沒上報的作弊案例=沒有作弊

　　2.沒有與其他院校的橫向比較

　　3.調查不科學.

　　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.

　　點評：開頭不用重述原題 省下個兩三分鐘還可以多想下后面怎么寫

　　avoid the flaw 沒有這個用法。

　　手把手再教一下段落該怎么寫/展開。

　　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之前那個report前面沒有寫students這個限定詞 而honor code之后都是students reported 這里可以做文章。假如把這一點再加入剛才這個段落 那就非常豐滿了。