ENGL 147N Week 5 Discussion 2: Source Incorporation & Academic Integrity
ENGL 147N Week 5 Discussion 2: Source Incorporation & Academic Integrity
This second discussion board for Week 5 will require that you share a body paragraph for the upcoming pro/con position paper, incorporating one paraphrase and one quote. You will also need to give an explanation as to why you chose the quote and the paraphrase as evidence to incorporate into your draft. Be sure to use APA for internal citation. You can begin posting March 30 for credit.
In addition to your reading for the week, you might also like to take a look at some more on writing body paragraphs.
Body Paragraphs. (n.d.). Retrieved December 19, 2018, from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/argument_papers/body_paragraphs.htmlLinks to an external site.
Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on ENGL 147N Week 5 Discussion 2: Source Incorporation & Academic Integrity done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
Be sure to post before Wednesday. See our discussion rubric as a reference when you are writing your initial post.
If you have any questions at all, email me or post to our class Q & A.
It is a false belief that death penalty deters crime. In the book, Deterrence and Death Penalty, Pepper and Nagin (2012) observe that “deterrence is but one of the many considerations relevant to deciding whether the death penalty is a good public policy” (p.12) which means that deterrence is one of the important reasons why death penalty is considered legal and good for the society. Proponents of death penalty have been unable to prove that death penalty deters and prevents crime. Pepper and Nagin (2012) have concluded that the hypothesis of deterrence is based on the idea that the government imposed punishment will definitely be severe and quick which will prevent others from committing crimes (p.29). Various studies have been published about death penalty and its effects and none have been able to conclusively prove that death penalty increases or decreases crime and more research needs to done in this regard. Death penalty is a cruel and inhuman form of punishment which grossly violates human rights and should be abolished.
I used the quote at the beginning of the paragraph to generate interest. The quote stood out because it was about deterrence and death penalty which was the central idea of the book. I had reviewed Turnitin plagiarism information through the link provided before writing this post. While paraphrasing, I used my own words to describe the author’s thoughts and I made sure that that i did an in text citation where I mentioned both the authors and year at the beginning of the paraphrase and ended with the page number so that the reader knows that I am using someone’s work and where to find the information. While quoting, I did an in text citation and used quotation marks for the exact sentence I used from the book. The plagiarism link provided was very useful and I incorporated my resources carefully with proper quotation marks, in text citations, reference and by making sure that I paraphrase the author’s thoughts and ideas using my own words. In my opinion I prefer quoting versus paraphrasing because paraphrasing is more difficult since you have to write the ideas of the author in your own words and that is not an easy task.
Nagin, D. S., & Pepper, J. V. (2012). Deterrence and the death penalty. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
The only thing that concerns me some here is the date of the publication. This is about eight years old, so that means the research the source used is even older than that (possibly a decade or more). So, that is something to keep in mind. A topic like this, where there is so much out there, you should be able to find something more current. I know there is a lot published on the connection between race and the death penalty, as well as innocent people being executed (or exonerated before execution). I would say that if you use this source to back it up with some really recent research with your other sources.
This is my paragraph draft.
“Gun control advocates often cite the 11,000-gun murders in this country each year as justification for stricter gun laws. However, cancer kills fifty times that many people in the U.S. every year”. (Perry, 2013, para. 1) These are some of the statements and statics you will hear gun control advocates and pro-gun advocates. The argument is emotional and vague not offering facts to make logical decisions. Most people are very emotional about this topic and rarely look at the facts when voting. Perry (2013) stated that more regulations do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The media sensationalizes killings contributing to the hysteria. Social media circulates inaccurate and false information resulting in people making uninformed judgments. Choosing to focus on how many people are killed with firearms each year is ill-informed. Guns save many lives each year in the hands of legal gun owners.
This quote is significate because it reinforces the fact and research that shows how people come to decisions about gun control laws. I choose to quote and cite the passage with the statistical numbers because those can not be paraphrased. They were able to paraphrase other information but still give the author credit. I find paraphrasing much harder, re-wording something that has already been saying, and usually has been said well is difficult to summarize. Turnitin is helpful in addressing and improving paraphrasing and quoting skills.
Perry, C. (2013). Spring [Entire issue]. University of Main Farmington, 2. Retrieved from http://www2.umf.maine.edu/flyer/archives/2013-spring/issue-2-3-7-2013/why-gun-control-is-not-the-answer-and-what-we-can-do-to-stop-gun-violence/
Interesting quote. That’s a lot of cancer deaths! A lot! That quote makes me think more about the research that needs to continue to be done on cancer, so we can find better treatments and a cure. It sort of takes my focus away from gun control, which I assume is what the author intended. At the same time, the two are very different animals: cancer deaths vs. gun deaths. Gun deaths result as someone actively pulling a trigger. Cancer deaths result from disease. I think the opposition to that argument would immediately state that.
My concern here is that the source is from 2013. Have statistics changed much in the last seven years? That will be something to consider.
I think using that quote at the begining of the paragraph may not be the best choice. Linking cancer to gun related deaths doesnt seem like a fair comparisson and it is unclear at first where the paragraph is going. I think the point you are trying to convey is that proponents of both sides of the issue use statisticis and play on emotion rather than reason is a good one but I would suggest reworking the organization of th paragraph a little differently. Maybe writing something like gun control advocates cite ” 11,000 deaths…” while pro gun cite ” cancer kills…” as an example of vague use of facts by both sides.
I agree that this is a very emotional topic for people. I personally am a pro-gun ownership person. My husband’s family lives in Iowa, when we go out there to visit, we go out to the gun range for fun. My kids have all been taught gun safety, and have gone with us to the range to go shooting. My brother-in-laws all hunt. My husband just purchased his first gun. I have no issue with people owning guns and using them in a safe and appropriate manner. The issue is when less law-abiding people get their hands on guns and seek to do harm. When something terrible happens, like a mass shooting, I completely understand the snap reaction to start calling for stricter gun laws. But when I stop to really consider this, I then ask myself, are laws really going to stop someone who is already planning on doing something illegal?
I choose to talk about organ donation.
Even though a person may have a desire to donate their organs in a case of death, the procedure of doing it might be challenged with numerous obstacles and the perspectives of family members. David M. Shaw defines one of the obstacles as vagueness, which is present in the consent to organ donation. One of the examples of such vagueness is the pathways of the process of donation; the author claims that “there are two main donation pathways: donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after circulatory death (DCD)” (Shaw, 2017, p. 426). In other words, the process of donation can happen after the stop of heart function or after the stop of brain function – two types of deaths, which are different in time. The difference in timing is frequently omitted by the potential donors or their family members, who may refuse to consent. The other family perspectives were reviewed by Ralph and co-authors (2014), who identified such obstacles as suspicion and fear, reactions to the death of a close person, the motifs, decisional conflicts, donor’s will, and vulnerability. Thus, the process of donation is associated with numerous obstacles and family perspectives.
In the first sentence, I attracted the attention by highlighting the contradiction between the desires of a patient and the challenges of donation procedure. One such challenge, the donation pathway, is defined in the quote that was used (Shaw, 2017). The quote gives the definitions to the types of death, after which donation is possible; the quote is used as these definitions are challenging to paraphrase (Shaw, 2017). At the same time, the list of family members’ perspectives, which is a paraphrase from the second source, was a more manageable task (Ralph et al., 2014). Turnitin helped me paraphrase the sentence by finding synonyms and highlighting the information relevant to the paper. In my opinion, paraphrasing is a more flexible tool that allows the writers to smoothly incorporate the relevant information in the piece of academic text.
Ralph, A., Chapman, J. R., Gillis, J., Craig, J. C., Butow, P., Howard, K., … Tong, A. (2014). Family Perspectives on Deceased Organ Donation: Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. American Journal of Transplantation, 14(4), 923–935.
Shaw, D.M. (2017). The consequences of vagueness in consent to organ donation. Bioethics, 31(6), 424-443.
Don’t wait until the last minute
Fill in your requirements and let our experts deliver your work asap.