题目9 f2 Y1 h; D9 O- g
Argument242 The following appeared as an editorial in the student newspaper of Groveton College.# q! X" n$ Y! l& T: p: ^# {2 b3 W
"To combat the recently reported dramatic rise in cheating among college and university students, these institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's, 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. Groveton's 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." 0 P$ H2 j2 T D" a
翻译" b- G0 D# V% d6 l- E( Z
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。4 T( w7 H2 w7 N! u" U- V3 r
频次
0 s9 a4 k- J5 g1 ~. N6 t* o3 a/ K在上个作文季度中,该题出现17次 ) w9 q9 z2 _- n; S' r3 q
逻辑思路( A/ |1 Z' ?6 l
结论: 大家应该采用G的诚信制度7 d6 F0 |- e* C4 _) z- i7 {' L' B
论据一:老制度的劣势
! T6 m3 p `) }论据二:新制度的优势(其中包含两个分支)+ h6 ^: t( x. F: f
展开攻击2 X0 _7 a! B* \ ~1 ~4 F0 l
攻击点一:Hasty Generalization) t+ k8 r6 l# G
认为G的honor code很成功,其它学校也应该采纳,并且告诉我们honor code 的具体内容。这是一个直接从结论入手的攻击点,你可以把honor code 的内容看作文章的前提而不去攻击,这样只能简单的说G的诚信制度可能带有相当严厉的惩罚措施或放任的自由度,前者可能并不适用于那些自主开放给予学生充分信任的学校(我记得Cornell好像给予学生充分的信任,考试一般不设supervisor),后者可能使原本考试体制形如鸡肋学校雪上加霜。当然,这个前提本身值得我们去思考——因为honor code 的validity值得怀疑:第一、同意不作弊不代表肯定不作弊;第二、怀疑别人作弊往往带有主观性,没有作弊而被认定为作弊显然荒谬,可能对学生心理造成不好的影响) A! P' @$ {+ b& g
攻击点二:Incomplete Comparison7 [6 K1 S% P! J H; T; ~
首先是honor code 和old-fashioned system之间的比较,作者没有证据表明honor code比 old-fashioned system 更成功——第一、学生上报的作弊次数未必真实,可能有些学生作弊但没被发现或上报因此不只是twenty-one cases of cheating;第二、拿第一年的结果和五年后的结果进行比较也是不完整的,第二、三、四年的情况如何呢?可能第二年作弊案彪升到了三四十起也说不定对吧?所以应该是这五年平均次数比使用老方法低。此外,个人认为这里还可以加个批判过去推将来的小错误,因为作者的结论建立在G采用honor code 后,教学管理,生源素质等各方面都不变。( H4 u" J5 D7 k( w' b& g8 A) k- [
其次是缺乏Groveton和other colleges and universities之间的comprehensive comparison。依然采用old-fashioned system的学校或许这五年间因为采用electronic surveillance equipment 而使作弊案大幅度减少呢?3 t5 |; u+ U+ E4 c
攻击点三:Survey(调查的可信度)
( d( ]* O1 J& J# Z: Z) `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。- C, c2 D7 E) e+ w4 T, U) ?
攻击点四:Sample Difference9 J, k. Y. b1 \, g5 w2 z
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。
& }! ^1 K1 f1 Q, L1 e$ X( y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. l! c% \& P8 s
2.没有与其他院校的横向比较
6 I* W& x7 e) C8 N$ H 3.调查不科学.; x" r$ _; P* s
In this argument, the arguer concludes that institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton’s. 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.& X. t9 n6 R( W! V: W) X
- M- |. Q `! |2 `% g6 n$ d
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 don’t cheat. The difference between the two concepts is that maybe some students who cheat didn’t be found out or the supervisor did not report their behavior. Perhaps the students help each other’s to cheat and do not notify faculty members others’ cheating behavior. |