Ethicaland Legal Considerations Plagiarism, Cheating and Fabrication
Jenniferis guilty of plagiarism since she copy pasted the content directlywithout even changing a word or acknowledging the source ofinformation. She therefore meant that the work was hers, which wasnot the case, thus the academic dishonesty. Jennifer should haveparaphrased the information in the inline articles and mention theauthor of the text (Brosig42).
Philis guilty of fabrication. Phil has cited sources that he has not usedin his paper on college students use of FaceBook as a source of news.Phil should not have used citations of articles he has not used andshould have made use of the actual articles that he used when writingthe paper (Brosig43).
Sueis guilty of cheating. Sue has presented two papers but used theinformation in one paper, and copied it to the second paper. Thefirst paper is already a product and despite being the owner,presenting the paper for the second time would amount to cheating.Since the initial instructions were to present two papers, she hasonly presented only one and copied its contents to another paper. Sueshould have used similar information but write two different paperswhere each one will address the topics provided (Brosig50).
QUESTIONSON THE ARTICLE
Thepaper should use Version 1
Theacademic paper to be written should use version. Version 1 hasparaphrased the information that is contained in the original articleand used quotes and a citation where direct information has beenprovided. Version 1 has also created a reference at the bottom, whichshows complete information about the original source of theinformation. Version 2 has paraphrased the information appropriatelybut has not cited the original source of the information that hasbeen paraphrased. Additionally, Version 2 has not also providedcomplete information about the original source of information(Bleeker48).
Ifthis information is found plagiarized in an academic paper, thestudents might score a zero in the paper, fail in the course, besuspended, or get expelled.
Thepaper should use Version 1
Version1 is the acceptable paraphrase of the information in the AdvertisingAge foran academic paper. At the beginning of the paragraph, the author hascited the author`s name and the year of the source of information.Additionally, the academic paper has provided the completeinformation about the original source of information. Version 2 is anacceptable paraphrase of the information since it has not cited theauthor of the original source of information (Brosig66).
Thenews story should use Version 2
Version2 is the best representation of the appropriate way to discussGreer`s ideas in a news story. Version 2 has provided information inthe second person and has not included any direct quotes, which makesit easier to understand to the audience. Version 1 has includeddirect quotes that could easily be misinterpreted by the audience.When a direct quote is used in the news story, it is likely for theaudience to think that it is the anchor who said the words. The useof direct quotes is best interpreted in a written form (Brosig52).
Repercussionsof quote misinterpretation
Ifthe quote would be misinterpreted, it would imply that the newsanchor conducted the interview. The repercussions for such amisinterpretation would be that credit would be given to the newsanchor other than the person who conducted the interview.
Thebrief should use Version 1
Thebrief should use version 1 as it provides information presented byVanderbilt University Professor John Greer. The information includedin version 1 has at least cited the original source of informationthat it has provided. In Version 2, the information has beenfabricated, indicating that the author of the brief is the originalsource of that information. Additionally, version 2 has statedopinions of another individual as facts, which is not the case(Brosig39).
Repercussionsfor fabrication of the advertising brief
Ifthis information was fabricated in the advertising brief, it wouldmean that if the opinions provided by John Greer would be biased oruntrue, then anyone quoting the advertising brief would be receivingthe wrong information about negative advertising. John Greer hasonly provided opinions and any person quoting this information astrue would be misleading the public (Keith-Spiegel76).
Bleeker,K. C. (2008). Tobe honest: Championing academic integrity in community colleges.Washington, DC: Community College Press.
Brosig,M., & Kas, K. (2008). Teachingtheory and academic writing: A guide to undergraduate lecturing inpolitical science.Opladen, Germany: Budrich UniPress.
Keith-Spiegel,P., & Whitley, B. E. (2001). Academicdishonesty.Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum.