GRE Argument Topic 112

NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Tasks 20, 113, 131 of this Website. However, if you read carefully you will notice that the topic and the task instructions are different. Hence, it is very important to read the topic as well as its instructions completely before you start to write your response.

Sample 1:

The argument promotes the effectiveness of using an honor code to prevent cheating and uses some scant evidence to justify its continued use. An apparent decline in the number of cheating incidents leads the reader to agree with the position, but other explanations may be more realistic.

Students are not as likely to observe, recognize, or report cheating as are their professors. In a testing situation, for example, students may be so focused on their own performance and completing the test on time that they are unaware of others around them. Given the opportunity to look at other students in the classroom, they might not recognize that a fellow test- taker is cheating. Many who cheat have developed techniques that make their dishonest behavior invisible to the casual or inexperienced observer. Students who do see and recognize another's cheating are faced with a moral dilemma. On one hand, they have agreed to honor the code established by the college. On the other hand, they may risk losing a friend or causing the failure of an otherwise honest student. They may empathize with a classmate who chooses cheating as a means of passing a difficult course. Of course, cheating on a test is not the only form of academic dishonesty. Plagiarism rears its ugly head when students are under some pressure to meet a deadline for a research paper. The temptation to cut-and-paste and take credit for another's words or ideas is strong for college students who have run out of ideas before running out of time. Other students are not likely to see this type of work done by classmates and, therefore, cannot be expected to report it. The professors who do read and recognize the plagiarized writing are no longer compelled to report it. They may simply assign a grade of zero. These limitations can help to explain the lower number of reported incidents of cheating at Groveton College.

The adoption of the honor code by itself may not fully explain the apparent decline in cheating. School officials may have added new consequences or strengthened those that already existed if students are caught cheating in some manner. Fear of failure or expulsion would have created a greater incentive to remain academically honest at Groveton College.

In addition to instituting an honor code, Groveton College may have changed its grading system. They may have replaced a traditional 4-point measurement of excellence to pass/fail, for example. Relieved of the pressure to achieve based on rigid guidelines, students would feel less compelled to cheat in order to meet grading expectations. In addition, professors may have changed the nature of their assessments. Instead of administering tests in a pressurized classroom under time constraints, they may have given take-home tests that students can complete in the comfort of their own residences, using notes and other resources. They may have eliminated tests altogether, relying on measurements of knowledge that are less likely to create opportunities for cheating.

Perhaps the simplest explanation for a reduction in the number of reported instances of cheating would be a decline in student population at Groveton College. In fact, the college may have instituted the apparently popular honor code in an effort to attract more students to its campus. Depending on the size of the student body, a reduction in the number of reported cases of cheating could be an increase in the percentage of students caught cheating.

Groveton’s use of the survey results in which a majority of students said they would be less likely to cheat if an honor code exists may be short-sighted. The survey may not have included other incentives to curtail cheating. If the survey listed only an honor code as a choice, the conclusion is flawed and is not likely to explain the apparent reduction in reported cheating cases.

If any of these alternate explanations sufficiently account for the lower number of reported cases of cheating at Groveton College, the school must relinquish its belief that the honor code is an effective change in its academic philosophy. Further investigation by college administrators can uncover the real reason for an increase in academic integrity.

Sample 2:

This argument is based on an editorial in the student newspaper of Groveton College. As per this editorial, the institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton’s to combat the recently reported dramatic rise in cheating among college and university students. The author has pointed out the effectiveness of the honor codes system in Groveton College. However, this argument contains several critical flaws, which render it unpersuasive.

First of all, the author gives the conclusion without comparing the situation of other institutions with that of Groveton College. The author has not given enough details about the measures taken by Groveton College. There might be some other measures also, which were put into execution at the same time with the honor codes system, that must have helped to abate the cheating number of students. There is also a possibility of the exam becoming easier for the students. Hence, there is a probability of the other changes being effective instead of the honor codes system. Even if the honor codes system is effective in Groveton, it does not necessarily mean that it will have the same effect in other institutions. The author should have ruled out these possibilities before concluding the argument.

Secondly, it is wrong on our part to assume that simply by saying that the students agree not to cheat in exams, these students actually will not cheat. It is quite possible that they tell lies and they will cheat irrespective of what they have promised. Similarly, suspecting a student of cheating does not mean that he is really cheating. May be the student who is suspected by another one actually does not cheat. If that be the case, then it will be wrong to punish that student and being wrongly suspected by other student will harm the relationship between the two students.

The author has also said that that the honor code is successful by only showing that five years later the number of cheats declined to fourteen from twenty-one in the first year. However, he failed to consider that it is also possible that many students just do not want to inform their faculty when they suspect that someone is cheating. The number of cases reported does not necessarily mean the number of actual cases. It might be possible that students have reduced reporting the cases or they have lost faith in the new honor code system. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible explanations, the author’s conclusion is doubtful.

In addition, the reduction from 21 cases to 14 cases is not a great improvement to have taken place in 5 years. It might have been that proper counseling sessions had been given to the students in these five years and it might have made them reform their old ways. In that case, more emphasis should be given to providing successful counseling sessions to students rather than embracing the new honor code.

The author should have given details of a survey where students were asked the reasons why they cheat in exams. He should have collected reliable inputs from the faculty members regarding the new honor codes system and the other measures to stop cheating. That should have supported his argument in a much better way.