week 3 avoiding plagiarism

Upload: stephanie-faye-oliva

Post on 02-Jun-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/11/2019 Week 3 Avoiding Plagiarism

    1/9

    Avoiding Plagiarism

    To avoid plagiarism, adhere to these guidelines:

    Don't rely too much on one source, or you may easily slip into using that

    person's thoughts as your own. Keep accurate records while doing research and taking notes or you may

    lose track of where an idea came from. If you do not know where you gotan idea or piece of information, do not use it in your paper until you findout. You will need to keep track of authors, titles, page numbers, andpublication information to cite each source correctly.

    When you take notes, be sure to put quotation marks around words,phrases, or sentences taken verbatim from a source. If you use any ofthose words, phrases or sentences when summarizing or paraphrasingthe source, make sure to put them in quotation marks. Keep in mind thatchanging a word here and there while keeping a source's sentence

    structure or phrasing constitutes plagiarism, even if you credit the sourcefor the ideas. Cite the source of all ideas, opinions, facts, and statistics that are not

    common knowledge. Choose an appropriate documentation style and use it consistently and

    properly.

    A. The samples that follow all quote, appropriately or inappropriately, from thefollowing paragraph from page 7 of the book The Metaphysical Club by LouisMenand:

    We think of the Civil War as a war to save the union and to abolish slavery, butbefore the fighting began most people regarded these as incompatible ideals.Northerners who wanted to preserve the union did not wish to see slaveryextended into the territories; some of them hoped it would wither away in thestates where it persisted. But many Northern businessmen believed that losingthe South would mean economic catastrophe, and many of their employeesbelieved that freeing the slaves would mean lower wages. They feared secessionfar more than they disliked slavery, and they were unwilling to risk the former bytrying to pressure the South into giving up the latter.

    (Note: The following samples feature MLA-style documentation, but each sampleof plagiarism would be equally incorrect if the documentation--if present at all--were APA, CSE, or Chicagostyle.)

    Plagiarism:

    People now believe that the Civil War was a war to save the union and to abolishslavery, but before the fighting began most people regarded these asincompatible ideals.

    (This quotation, which uses most of the source's sentence without evenacknowledging that the idea comes from a source, is plagiarized. Ideas andwords from a source cannotbe included as if they are your own--you must givecredit to the original writer.)

    Correct quotation:

    According to Louis Menand, people now believe that "the Civil War was a war tosave the union and to abolish slavery, but before the fighting began most peopleregarded these as incompatible ideals" (7).

  • 8/11/2019 Week 3 Avoiding Plagiarism

    2/9

    Plagiarism:

    Menand observes that before the Civil War, many Northerners feared secessionfar more than they disliked slavery, and they were unwilling to risk the former bytrying to pressure the South into giving up the latter (7).

    (This quotation is plagiarized because it uses the exact words of the source--most of a sentence--without quotation marks.)

    Correct quotation:

    Menand observes that before the Civil War, many Northerners "feared secessionfar more than they disliked slavery, and they were unwilling to risk the former bytrying to pressure the South into giving up the latter" (7).

    Plagiarism:

    According to Menand, the abolition of slavery and the preservation of the unionwere seen before the Civil War as incompatible ideals (7).

    (This is plagiarism because exact words--"incompatible ideals"--from the originalsource are not acknowledged as borrowed.)

    Correct quotation:

    According to Menand, the abolition of slavery and the preservation of the unionwere seen before the Civil War as "incompatible ideals" (7).

    Misleading quotation:

    Menand writes that many Northerners "hoped that slavery would wither away inthe states where it persisted" (7).

    (This sentence is unacceptable because it claims to be a direct quotation, but thewords have been changed.)

    Correct quotation:

    Menand writes that many Northerners "hoped that it [slavery] would wither awayin the states where it persisted" (7).

    Misleading quotation:

    Menand notes that "many Northern businessmen and many of their employeesfeared secession far more than they disliked slavery, and they were unwilling torisk the former by trying to pressure the South into giving up the latter" (7).

    (This sentence is unacceptable because the writer has not used ellipsis marks toindicate where words have been omitted from the quotation.)

    Correct quotation:

    Menand notes that "many Northern businessmen [. . .] and many of theiremployees [. . .] feared secession far more than they disliked slavery, and theywere unwilling to risk the former by trying to pressure the South into giving up thelatter" (7).

  • 8/11/2019 Week 3 Avoiding Plagiarism

    3/9

    B. Citing sources

    C. Sumarizing or paraphrasing

    While documentation styles differ in what information they require you toreport, when you are taking notes from sources, you should always keeptrack of authors, titles, page numbers, and publication information.Some documentation styles include in-text citations, and most require some

    list of references or works cited in the paper.In-Text CitationsThe page number(s) where the material quoted, summarized, orparaphrased is found in the source should be placed immediately followingthe cited material and preceding any punctuation marks that divide or end thesentence if the documentation style uses parenthetical citation, as MLA,APA, and CSE name-year style documentation do. If you are using Chicagoor CSE number style, this information will appear in a note. You should use asignal phrase to introduce material you are quoting, paraphrasing, orsummarizing from a source. This phrase is generally placed immediatelybefore the material you are citing. It is a good practice to include the author's

    name in the signal phrase (for example, William Julius Wilson comments). Ifthe author's name is not included in the signal phrase, it mustbe placed inthe parenthetical citation after the material from the source.

    Works Cited / List of References / Bibliography PageEach source mentioned in the paper must have its own entry on the workscited page, on the list of references, in the bibliography, or (in Chicagostylepapers without a separate bibliography) in the note where the source ismentioned in the paper. Consult a reference work about the style you areusing to determine what information to include on this list or in this note.When creating a works cited page, a list of references, or a bibliography,

    alphabetize the list by author's last name (or by the first word of the title, ifthe author is not given), unless you are using CSE number style, in whichcase the list of references is arranged in the order you cite them in yourpaper.

    When summarizing or paraphrasing material from a source, remember thatyou must credit the source of the idea with an accurate citation, naming theauthor either in the sentence or in the citation. A correct citation is notsufficient to protect against charges of plagiarism, however: you must useyour own words, sentence structure, and phrasing. Simply substitutingsynonyms for words in a source's original sentence is plagiarism, even if youcredit the source accurately.It is best to write your summary or paraphrase withoutthe original source in

    front of you, and it is also wise to check your paraphrase against the originalto make sure you have not inadvertently made your words too similar tothose in your source.

  • 8/11/2019 Week 3 Avoiding Plagiarism

    4/9

    Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing

    Summary:This handout is intended to help you become more comfortable withthe uses of and distinctions among quotations, paraphrases, and summaries.This handout compares and contrasts the three terms, gives some pointers, and

    includes a short excerpt that you can use to practice these skills.

    Contributors:Dana Lynn Driscoll, Allen BrizeeLast Edited:2011-12-14 08:19:17

    This handout is intended to help you become more comfortable with the uses ofand distinctions among quotations, paraphrases, and summaries. This handoutcompares and contrasts the three terms, gives some pointers, and includes ashort excerpt that you can use to practice these skills.

    What are the differences among quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing?

    These three ways of incorporating other writers' work into your own writing differaccording to the closeness of your writing to the source writing.

    Quotations must be identical to the original, using a narrow segment of thesource. They must match the source document word for word and must beattributed to the original author.

    Paraphrasing involves putting a passage from source material into your ownwords. A paraphrase must also be attributed to the original source. Paraphrasedmaterial is usually shorter than the original passage, taking a somewhat broader

    segment of the source and condensing it slightly.

    Summarizing involves putting the main idea(s) into your own words, includingonly the main point(s). Once again, it is necessary to attribute summarized ideasto the original source. Summaries are significantly shorter than the original andtake a broad overview of the source material.

    Why use quotations, paraphrases, and summaries?

    Quotations, paraphrases, and summaries serve many purposes. You might usethem to . . .

    Provide support for claims or add credibility to your writing

    Refer to work that leads up to the work you are now doing

    Give examples of several points of view on a subject

    Call attention to a position that you wish to agree or disagree with

    Highlight a particularly striking phrase, sentence, or passage by quotingthe original

    Distance yourself from the original by quoting it in order to cue readersthat the words are not your own

    Expand the breadth or depth of your writing

    Writers frequently intertwine summaries, paraphrases, and quotations. As part ofa summary of an article, a chapter, or a book, a writer might include paraphrasesof various key points blended with quotations of striking or suggestive phrases asin the following example:

    In his famous and influential work the Interpretation of Dreams, Sigmund Freudargues that dreams are the "royal road to the unconscious" (page #), expressingin coded imagery the dreamer's unfulfilled wishes through a process known as

  • 8/11/2019 Week 3 Avoiding Plagiarism

    5/9

    the "dream-work" (page #). According to Freud, actual but unacceptable desiresare censored internally and subjected to coding through layers of condensationand displacement before emerging in a kind of rebus puzzle in the dream itself(page #).

    How to use quotations, paraphrases, and summaries

    Practice summarizing the essay found here, using paraphrases and quotationsas you go. It might be helpful to follow these steps:

    Read the entire text, noting the key points and main ideas.

    Summarize in your own words what the single main idea of the essay is.

    Paraphrase important supporting points that come up in the essay.

    Consider any words, phrases, or brief passages that you believe shouldbe quoted directly.

    There are several ways to integrate quotations into your text. Often, a shortquotation works well when integrated into a sentence. Longer quotations canstand alone. Remember that quoting should be done only sparingly; be sure thatyou have a good reason to include a direct quotation when you decide to do so.You'll find guidelines for citing sources and punctuating citations at ourdocumentation guide pages.

    Exercises:

    Directions: Read each passage and on a separate sheet of paper:

    1. Create a title for the passage related to the main idea.2. Accurately summarize the text for each passage.3. Your summary must describe all key ideas from the text.4. Do not include opinions or personal info in your summary.5. Highlight or underline key ideas in each passage.

    1. Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of ourfundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred status,well aware that it is "designed to protect the broadest possible liberty ofconscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess

    his beliefs , and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the libertyof others and with the common good.

    2. The legislative branch, as the main facet of a representative government,endeavors to enact laws and policies that aim to remedy looming societal woes,while the executive is closed set to fully implement these measures and bringconcrete and substantial solutions within the reach of Juan dela Cruz. Seeminglydistant is the judicial branch, oftentimes regarded as an inert governmental bodythat merely casts its watchful eyes on clashing stakeholders until it is called uponto adjudicate. Passive, yet reflexive when called into action, the Judiciary thenwillingly embarks on its solemn duty to interpret legislation vis-a-vis the most vital

    and enduring principle that holds Philippine society together - the supremacy ofthe Philippine Constitution.

    3. Nothing has polarized the nation more in recent years than the issues ofpopulation growth control, abortion and contraception. As in every democraticsociety, diametrically opposed views on the subjects and their perceivedconsequences freely circulate in various media. From television debates2 tosticker campaigns,3 from rallies by socio-political activists to mass gatherings

  • 8/11/2019 Week 3 Avoiding Plagiarism

    6/9

    organized by members of the clergy4 - the clash between the seeminglyantithetical ideologies of the religious conservatives and progressive liberals hascaused a deep division in every level of the society. Despite calls to withholdsupport thereto, however, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known asthe Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law),

    was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012.

    4. A perusal of the foregoing petitions shows that the petitioners are assailingthe constitutionality of RH Law on the following GROUNDS:

    The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn. According to the petitioners,notwithstanding its declared policy against abortion, the implementation of theRH Law would authorize the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterinedevices and injectables which are abortives, in violation of Section 12, Article II ofthe Constitution which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother andthe life of the unborn from conception.35

    The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection againsthazardous products. The petitioners posit that the RH Law provides universalaccess to contraceptives which are hazardous to one's health, as it causescancer and other health problems.36

    The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom. The petitioners contend thatthe RH Law violates the constitutional guarantee respecting religion as itauthorizes the use of public funds for the procurement of contraceptives. For thepetitioners, the use of public funds for purposes that are believed to be contraryto their beliefs is included in the constitutional mandate ensuring religious

    freedom.

    5. In its attempt to persuade the Court to stay its judicial hand, the OSGasserts that it should submit to the legislative and political wisdom of Congressand respect the compromises made in the crafting of the RH Law, it being "aproduct of a majoritarian democratic process"75 and "characterized by aninordinate amount of transparency."76 The OSG posits that the authority of theCourt to review social legislation like the RH Law by certiorari is "weak," since theConstitution vests the discretion to implement the constitutional policies andpositive norms with the political departments, in particular, with Congress.77 Itfurther asserts that in view of the Court's ruling in Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council,78 the remedies of certiorari and prohibition utilized by thepetitioners are improper to assail the validity of the acts of the legislature.79

    6. Moreover, the OSG submits that as an "as applied challenge," it cannotprosper considering that the assailed law has yet to be enforced and applied tothe petitioners, and that the government has yet to distribute reproductive healthdevices that are abortive. It claims that the RH Law cannot be challenged "on itsface" as it is not a speech-regulating measure.80

    In many cases involving the determination of the constitutionality of the actions ofthe Executive and the Legislature, it is often sought that the Court temper itsexercise of judicial power and accord due respect to the wisdom of its co-equalbranch on the basis of the principle of separation of powers. To be clear, theseparation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government,which obtains not through express provision but by actual division in ourConstitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance ofmatters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere.81

    7. Thus, the 1987 Constitution provides that: (a) the legislative power shall

  • 8/11/2019 Week 3 Avoiding Plagiarism

    7/9

    be vested in the Congress of the Philippines;82(b) the executive power shall bevested in the President of the Philippines;83 and (c) the judicial power shall bevested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established bylaw.84The Constitution has truly blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines,the allotment of powers among the three branches of government.

    In its relationship with its co-equals, the Judiciary recognizes the doctrine ofseparation of powers which imposes upon the courts proper restraint, born of thenature of their functions and of their respect for the other branches ofgovernment, in striking down the acts of the Executive or the Legislature asunconstitutional. Verily, the policy is a harmonious blend of courtesy and caution.

    8. In United States (US) constitutional law, a facial challenge, also known asa First Amendment Challenge, is one that is launched to assail the validity ofstatutes concerning not only protected speech, but also all other rights in the FirstAmendment.These include religious freedom, freedom of the press, and the right

    of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for aredress of grievances.107 After all, the fundamental right to religious freedom,freedom of the press and peaceful assembly are but component rights of theright to one's freedom of expression, as they are modes which one's thoughts areexternalized.

    9. In this jurisdiction, the application of doctrines originating from the U.S.has been generally maintained, albeit with some modifications. While this Courthas withheld the application of facial challenges to strictly penal statues,108it hasexpanded its scope to cover statutes not only regulating free speech, but alsothose involving religious freedom, and other fundamental rights.109 The

    underlying reason for this modification is simple. For unlike its counterpart in theU.S., this Court, under its expanded jurisdiction, is mandated by the FundamentalLaw not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legallydemandable and enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there hasbeen a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction onthe part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.110Verily, the framersof Our Constitution envisioned a proactive Judiciary, ever vigilant with its duty tomaintain the supremacy of the Constitution.

    10. Consequently, considering that the foregoing petitions have seriouslyalleged that the constitutional human rights to life, speech and religion and otherfundamental rights mentioned above have been violated by the assailedlegislation, the Court has authority to take cognizance of these kindred petitionsand to determine if the RH Law can indeed pass constitutional scrutiny. Todismiss these petitions on the simple expedient that there exist no actual case orcontroversy, would diminish this Court as a reactive branch of government,acting only when the Fundamental Law has been transgressed, to the detrimentof the Filipino people.

    11. The PMA throws its full weight in supporting the RH Bill at the same timethat PMA maintains its strong position that fertilization is sacred because it is atthis stage that conception, and thus human life, begins. Human lives are sacredfrom the moment of conception, and that destroying those new lives is never licit,no matter what the purported good outcome would be. In terms of biology andhuman embryology, a human being begins immediately at fertilization and afterthat, there is no point along the continuous line of human embryogenesis whereonly a "potential" human being can be posited. Any philosophical, legal, orpolitical conclusion cannot escape this objective scientific fact.

    12. The scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human

  • 8/11/2019 Week 3 Avoiding Plagiarism

    8/9

    organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientificallywell defined "moment of conception." This conclusion is objective, consistent withthe factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, orreligious view of human life or of human embryos.164

    In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or understood under medicalparlance, and more importantly, following the intention of the Framers of theConstitution, the undeniable conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism andthat the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well-definedmoment of conception, that is, upon fertilization.

    13. For the above reasons, the Court cannot subscribe to the theoryadvocated by Hon. Lagman that life begins at implantation.165According to him,"fertilization and conception are two distinct and successive stages in thereproductive process. They are not identical and synonymous."166Citing a letterof the WHO, he wrote that "medical authorities confirm that the implantation of

    the fertilized ovum is the commencement of conception and it is only afterimplantation that pregnancy can be medically detected."167

    This theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any legal orscientific mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning of life but to the viability ofthe fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object - it is a livinghuman being complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes.168Implantation has beenconceptualized only for convenience by those who had population control inmind. To adopt it would constitute textual infidelity not only to the RH Law butalso to the Constitution.

    If such theory would be accepted, it would unnervingly legitimize the utilization ofany drug or device that would prevent the implantation of the fetus at the uterinewall. It would be provocative and further aggravate religious-based divisiveness.

    It would legally permit what the Constitution proscribes - abortion andabortifacients.

    14. Contrary to the assertions made by the petitioners, the Court finds that theRH Law, consistent with the Constitution, recognizes that the fertilized ovumalready has life and that the State has a bounden duty to protect it. Theconclusion becomes clear because the RH Law, first, prohibits any drug or

    device that induces abortion (first kind), which, as discussed exhaustively above,refers to that which induces the killing or the destruction of the fertilized ovum,and, second, prohibits any drug or device the fertilized ovum to reach and beimplanted in the mother's womb (third kind).

    By expressly declaring that any drug or device that prevents the fertilized ovumto reach and be implanted in the mother's womb is an abortifacient (third kind),the RH Law does not intend to mean at all that life only begins only atimplantation, as Hon. Lagman suggests. It also does not declare either thatprotection will only be given upon implantation, as the petitioners likewisesuggest. Rather, it recognizes that: one, there is a need to protect the fertilizedovum which already has life, and two, the fertilized ovum must be protected themoment it becomes existent - all the way until it reaches and implants in themother's womb. After all, if life is only recognized and afforded protection fromthe moment the fertilized ovum implants - there is nothing to prevent any drug ordevice from killing or destroying the fertilized ovum prior to implantation.

    15. From the foregoing, the Court finds that inasmuch as it affords protectionto the fertilized ovum, the RH Law does not sanction abortion. To repeat, it is the

  • 8/11/2019 Week 3 Avoiding Plagiarism

    9/9

    Court's position that life begins at fertilization, not at implantation. When afertilized ovum is implanted in the uterine wall , its viability is sustained but thatinstance of implantation is not the point of beginning of life. It started earlier. Andas defined by the RH Law, any drug or device that induces abortion, that is,which kills or destroys the fertilized ovum or prevents the fertilized ovum to reach

    and be implanted in the mother's womb, is an abortifacient.

    This notwithstanding, the Court finds that the proviso under Section 9 of the lawthat "any product or supply included or to be included in the EDL must have acertification from the FDA that said product and supply is made available on thecondition that it is not to be used as an abortifacient" as empty as it is absurd.The FDA, with all its expertise, cannot fully attest that a drug or device will not allbe used as an abortifacient, since the agency cannot be present in everyinstance when the contraceptive product or supply will be used.171

    Pursuant to its declared policy of providing access only to safe, legal and non-

    abortifacient contraceptives, however, the Court finds that the proviso of Section9, as worded, should bend to the legislative intent and mean that "any product orsupply included or to be included in the EDL must have a certification from theFDA that said product and supply is made available on the condition that itcannot be used as abortifacient." Such a construction is consistent with theproviso under the second paragraph of the same section that provides:

    Provided, further, That the foregoing offices shall not purchase or acquire by anymeans emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills, abortifacients that will beused for such purpose and their other forms or equivalent.

    Note: Passages were lifted verbatim form the consolidated cases of: JAMES M.IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, for themselves and in behalf of theirminor children, LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and BERNADETTE CARLOSIMBONG and MAGNIFICAT CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.,Petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON.FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management,HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A.LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education, Culture and Sports and HON.MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government,Respondents (G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)