The argument given above is a fallacious argument, the author has missed mandatory points in his essay which has resulted in abating his argument.
As the author suggests that by using Honor code system in Goverton College, cheating has been tremendously reduced but he has failed to describe the Honor Code system itself effectively, is this system merely psychological, practical or ephemeral, the author has not provided the reader exact nature of this system and he claims by asserting this Code the faculty members have strengthened their monitoring during examination, the question to be raised here is why the teachers were not able to tight the strictness before?what did they really lack before? Is just the name Honor code influential enough that it has increased the efficacy of students and teachers? Responding to these questions and then ameliorating the current situation may lead to even more long lasting results. As just one solution apposite enough for such a drastic change or are there more critical factors attached to Honor Code and if there are, then writer has failed to spur enthusiasm among the readers to convince them.
Another aspect the author should regard and take into meticulous consideration, is five year tenure of experimentation enough for taking such stern actions and changing the current system of monitoring. Honor Code might be just an influenza of this time and might not be applicable ten years or 15 years after. For a more permanent solution, a more detailed research is required. Because when we all enter our elementary education, students mainly comes with already augmented values about etiquette of leading a polite life, and even these values are taught in school, then why only a sudden name of Honor Code has been more effective instead of years of learning?, in such a situation the only thing questionable is the curriculum and itinerary of school education.
Even the approximate data given by author of less figure of complaints about cheating has dropped, now providing such statement means that the author has done his homework well but when he mentions such ambiguous reference to data like ‘in a recent survey’ ‘recent report’, it almost seems like the author is uncertain too or not giving the sufficient information to build a connection with reader, he must provide the exact and detailed specifications of all the surveys.
At the end the author concludes the argument superfluously by indicating that all the colleges and universities should opt for Honor Code system, but what author should consider is that if his argument is acclaimed authoritative even then his case study only integrated the colleges not universities. So what is applicable in colleges are really effective at university level or not?, because college and university are two different academically, professionally institutions with different hierarchies.
For the final summation of this argument if we assume that his proposal is agreed by all the authorities and they want to activate the Honor Code system in their respective academics even then the explanation of this system provided is not sufficient enough, he must describe it to every extent or aver to such authorities which may provide with extensive portfolio of the proposal.
So in light of all these points we conclude that author needs to rewrite his argument more comprehensively to convince his target group.