Week 10 · Chapter

Chapter 10 — Integrating Sources: Quoting, Paraphrasing & Avoiding Plagiarism

English Composition Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~40–50 minutes · Objective 5 (find, evaluate, and integrate credible sources: turn a topic into a research question, classify sources, judge credibility by lateral reading and a checklist, and quote, paraphrase, summarize, and synthesize with signal phrases and attribution — never patchwriting, never plagiarizing, and never trusting an unverified quotation, source, or citation), Objective 2 (read critically: annotate a text, summarize it accurately and neutrally in your own words, respond to it analytically with reasons, and separate a writer's claim from its support and a summary from a response) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the tutorial, the quiz, and the Writing Studio all build on it.

In plain language

Once you have chosen your sources, you have to bring them into your own sentences without losing track of whose words and ideas are whose. This week you learn three honest ways to do that. A quotation (a source's exact words in quotation marks) keeps the wording, a paraphrase (one passage restated in your own words and your own sentence shape) keeps the idea, and a summary keeps the gist of something longer. You also learn to spot patchwriting (keeping a source's sentence and swapping in synonyms), which counts as plagiarism even when you cite the source. You practice on a short, out-of-copyright passage from a 1918 style manual and on the running draft's quotation from a real study.

Why you already care about this

Picture a shift at a busy restaurant. At 6:40 the delivery driver calls and tells your coworker a long story about a flat tire, a detour, and a case of 24 lemons left on the wrong porch. At 6:45 your coworker hands you the message to pass on to the manager. You have three choices. You could repeat the driver's exact words, "I'm 45 minutes out, and the lemons are gone," because the manager will want the details as he said them. You could put it in your own words: the delivery is running late and part of it was lost. Or you could boil the whole story down to one line: the delivery will be late and short.

You make those choices every day without naming them. You also know, without being told, that you should not pass the driver's story off as your own. If the manager asks, "Who said that?", you answer, "The driver." That small habit of credit is the whole ethic of this week.

Writing with sources asks for the same three choices and the same habit of credit, with one difference: a reader cannot ask you who said it. Your sentences have to show it.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

tell a quotation, a paraphrase, and a summary apart, and choose the one that fits the job;
introduce a source with a signal phrase and a signal verb that matches what the source is doing;
decide when an idea needs credit and when a fact needs none;
tell an honest paraphrase from patchwriting, and fix a patch by writing from memory;
integrate a quotation with a signal phrase, an exact fragment, a page, and your own analysis;
put two sources in conversation instead of in a list;
check a chatbot's quotation against the real text before you use it.

Carry this sentence with you: borrow the idea, not the sentence shape; credit both.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 1, The Writing Process & the Rhetorical Situation, gave you the running draft's topic. Week 2, Critical Reading: Summary & Response, taught you to summarize a text neutrally and in your own words. Week 3, The Paragraph, gave you the PIE move: point, illustration, explanation. Week 6, Rhetorical Analysis, taught you to quote a few exact words and spend your sentences on what they do. Week 9, Research: Finding & Evaluating Sources, chose the running draft's four sources and ran each one through the credibility checklist.
This week: bringing those sources in honestly: quotation, paraphrase, and summary; the signal phrase; attribution and common knowledge; patchwriting and the cover-the-source test; the running draft's integrated quotation; a first look at synthesis; and a chatbot's invented quotations.
How they connect: last week you decided which sources earn a place. This week you decide how each one enters your sentences, and you make sure a reader can always tell your words from the source's.
Where we're going next: Week 11, MLA Documentation, explains the rules behind the citations you write this week, from the in-text form to the works-cited entry.

Three earlier ideas carry this chapter. From Week 2, a summary restates what a text says, neutrally, in your own words, and it covers the whole text rather than a favorite part. This week that same skill becomes one of the three honest moves. From Week 6, a quotation is a few words copied exactly from the archived text, never typed from memory. From Week 9, the mini-source set is the running draft's four real sources: a news article, a peer-reviewed article, a book, and a government guidance page. This week you bring two of them into the draft's sentences.

1. Meet the three honest moves: quotation, paraphrase, summary

Think back to the restaurant. Repeating the driver's words, restating his message, and boiling it down to one line are three different moves, and each one is honest because each one shows where the information came from. Writing with sources uses the same three.

A quotation is a source's exact words, copied from the real text and set in quotation marks, used when the precise wording matters.
A paraphrase is a restatement of one specific passage in the writer's own words and own sentence structure, at about the original's length, credited to the source in the same way as a quotation.
A summary boils a longer passage, or a whole source, down to its gist, in your own words and with credit to the source.

The three honest moves are those three ways of bringing a source into a draft while showing whose idea it is.

This week's main passage comes from a style manual. William Strunk Jr. privately printed The Elements of Style in 1918. Rule 13 of that book is "Omit needless words", and it opens with this passage, copied exactly from the Project Gutenberg text:

"Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."

The passage is out of copyright, so you may quote all of it. The Gutenberg text has no stable page numbers, so its in-text citation is "(Strunk)". The rules behind that form are next week's work; for now, notice that every move below credits Strunk.

Worked example — one passage, three moves. The quotation is Strunk's exact words. The paraphrase and the summary sentence are illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one.

Quotation (illustrative sentence): Strunk opens Rule 13 with a four-word verdict: "Vigorous writing is concise." The words inside the quotation marks are his, character for character. Strunk is named in the sentence and the text has no page, so no parenthetical follows.
Paraphrase (illustrative): "Strunk argues that good prose keeps only the words that do work, comparing a padded sentence to a drawing with stray lines or a machine with spare parts." It restates the one passage, in new words and a new sentence shape, at about the same length: 28 words against the original's 34.
Summary of a whole source (illustrative): "Beland and Murphy studied schools in four English cities that banned phones and found a small average gain in exam results, concentrated among the lowest-achieving students." This one sentence covers an entire journal article from the mini-source set. It quotes nothing and still credits the authors.

In words: the quotation keeps the source's wording, the paraphrase keeps one passage's meaning in your wording, and the summary keeps a long source's gist. All three name the source.

Misconception check — paraphrase and summary confused. Students often think a paraphrase is a short summary, or that a summary is a loose paraphrase. It is tempting because both use your own words. The cure is to ask two questions: how much of the source am I covering, and how long is my version? A paraphrase covers one passage at about its length. A summary covers a longer passage, or a whole source, and comes out much shorter.

2. Choose the move that fits the job

A carpenter does not use a hammer for every job, and a writer does not quote for every job. Each move does something the others cannot.

Quote when the exact wording matters: a memorable phrase, a definition, or words you plan to analyze. If changing the words would lose something, quote them.
Paraphrase when the idea matters but the wording does not. Paraphrase lets you fit a source's point into your own sentence and your own voice.
Summarize when you need the gist of something long: a whole article, a chapter, or a long argument. Your reader needs the finding, not the methods section.

Worked example — matching each move to its job. Here is how the three choices play out on this week's material.

Strunk's four words, "Vigorous writing is concise.", are short, memorable, and the very thing you would discuss in an essay about concision. Quote them.
The rest of Rule 13's opening, about drawings and machines, carries a useful comparison, but the wording is not the point. Paraphrase it.
Beland and Murphy's study fills a long journal article. The running draft needs its finding, not its data tables. Summarize it.

In words: let the job choose the move. Quote for wording, paraphrase for one idea, summarize for a whole.

A quick test helps when you are unsure. Imagine your reader asking, "Why did you quote that?" If your only answer is "it was in the source," paraphrase or summarize instead. A good quotation can always answer the question.

Misconception check — over-quoting as proof of research. Students often think a page full of quotations shows how much research they did. It is tempting because quotations look like evidence. But a draft that is mostly other people's sentences hides your thinking, and a reader starts skimming. The cure is to quote only what earns it and to paraphrase or summarize the rest, so most of the page is your voice.

Pause and think. Choose one of these two options.

(a) think of a sentence someone once said to you that you still remember word for word, and say why the exact wording mattered.
(b) think of a long story a friend told you that you passed on to someone else in one sentence, and say what you kept and what you dropped.

3. Lead in with a signal phrase

A good host at a party does not shove a stranger into the conversation. She says, "This is my neighbor from upstairs; she ran the city marathon last spring." The introduction tells everyone who is speaking and why they matter. A signal phrase does that job for a source.

A signal phrase is the lead-in, usually placed right before a quotation or paraphrase, that names the source and sets up what comes next, such as "As Strunk argues".

Two common shapes are "According to the Department for Education, ..." and "As Strunk argues, ...". The signal phrase names the source before the borrowed material arrives, so the reader never has to guess where your voice stops.

The verb inside the signal phrase matters as much as the name. A signal verb is the verb inside a signal phrase, such as argues, reports, finds, warns, or concedes, chosen to match what the source is actually doing.

Worked example — matching the signal verb to the source. The sentences are illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one.

"Strunk argues that good prose keeps only the words that do work." Argues fits, because Rule 13 makes a case for concision.
"Beland and Murphy found that the gain was concentrated among the lowest-achieving students." Found fits, because a study reports a result.
"Beland and Murphy prove that phones hurt every student." This sentence misreports the source twice. Prove overstates a careful finding, and "every student" stretches a gain that was concentrated among the lowest-achieving students.

In words: the signal verb is a small claim about your source. Choose the one that says what the source really does, no more and no less.

Here is a short menu to start from. For a claim, try argues, contends, or claims. For a result, try finds, reports, or shows. For a caution, try warns or cautions. For an admission, try concedes or acknowledges. Treat the menu as a starting point, not a rule; the right verb depends on the source in front of you.

Misconception check — any verb will do. Students often reach for the same verb every time, usually says, or for a strong verb like proves to sound confident. It is tempting because the verb feels like decoration. But a reader takes the verb as your report on the source. The cure is to reread the source and ask, "Is it arguing, reporting, warning, or admitting?" and then choose the verb that matches.

4. Credit ideas, not only words

Suppose a classmate tells you her plan to fix the long line at the campus coffee cart: a second register for drinks only. You love the idea, and you pitch it at the next student-government meeting in your own words. You never repeated her sentences. Did you take something that was hers? Most people would say yes. The idea was hers.

Writing works the same way. Attribution means telling the reader where an idea or a set of words came from. It is owed for quoted words and for paraphrased or summarized ideas alike.

Plagiarism is presenting another person's ideas, words, or work as your own, including restating someone's argument or distinctive language without credit. A paraphrase and a summary need credit as much as a quotation does, because the idea is still someone else's.

There is one exception. Common knowledge is a fact found in many sources, known to many readers, and not in dispute, which a writer may state without a citation. When you are unsure whether a fact qualifies, cite it.

Worked example — common knowledge or a source's finding? Both sentences are about this course's real texts.

"King delivered 'I Have a Dream' in 1963." This fact appears in many sources, many readers know it, and no one disputes it. It is common knowledge, so it needs no citation.
"The gain was concentrated among the lowest-achieving students." This is one study's finding. Only Beland and Murphy's research supports it, so it needs credit even when you put it in your own words.

In words: ask where the fact lives. If it lives in many places and no one argues about it, it is common knowledge. If it lives in one source, credit that source.

Here is an honest caveat: common knowledge depends on the audience. A fact every nurse knows may be news to a history class. If your readers would ask "says who?", cite.

Misconception check — "I only cite direct quotes." Students often think a citation is owed only for words in quotation marks. It is tempting because quotation marks are the visible sign of borrowing. But a citation credits ideas, not only words. The cure is to cite every quotation, every paraphrase, and every summary, and to leave out a citation only for true common knowledge.

5. Name the trap: patchwriting

Imagine you borrow a friend's essay, change "big" to "large" and "important" to "significant" all the way through, and hand it in. You typed every word yourself, and you even put her name at the bottom. Nobody would call that your essay. The skeleton is hers.

Rebecca Moore Howard named that move. In "A Plagiarism Pentimento" (1992) and "Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty" (1995), Howard (1992; 1995) called it patchwriting.

Patchwriting is keeping a source's sentence and swapping in synonyms or shuffling a clause. It is plagiarism even with a citation attached, because the sentence shape is still borrowed.

Worked example — Strunk's passage, patchwritten. The patchwritten version is illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one.

The source: "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."
The patch: "Strong writing is brief. A sentence should have no unneeded words, a paragraph no unneeded sentences, for the same reason that a picture should have no unneeded lines and a machine no unneeded parts."
What it kept: Strunk's two sentences, his order, and his comparison of a sentence to a drawing and a machine.
What it swapped: "Vigorous" became "Strong", "concise" became "brief", "contain" became "have", "unnecessary" became "unneeded" four times, and "drawing" became "picture".
The count: both versions run 34 words. Eight single-word swaps leave 34 − 8 = 26 words unchanged in their original places.

In words: the patch changed eight words and kept the whole skeleton. It is plagiarism even with "(Strunk)" attached, because a citation credits Strunk's idea, but the sentence shape is still his and nothing marks it as borrowed.

Why do writers patchwrite? Usually not out of bad intent. New writers often patchwrite while they are still learning a field's language. That is a reason to learn the cure, not a reason to keep the habit.

Misconception check — "changing a few words makes a paraphrase." Students often think a paraphrase is the original with new vocabulary. It is tempting because a thesaurus makes it fast, and the result looks different at a glance. But a reader who sets the two versions side by side sees the same sentence. The cure is to change the structure too: new sentence shape, new order, your own words.

Misconception check — "citing a source lets me copy its sentences." Students also think a citation works like a permission slip. It is tempting because the citation is honest about the source. But a citation credits the idea, not the phrasing. If you keep the phrasing, you owe quotation marks too.

6. Run the cover-the-source test

Think about giving a friend directions to your apartment. If you read them off your phone's map, you repeat the map's words: "Turn left onto Elm, continue 0.3 miles." If you know the way, you say it your own way: "Go past the bakery and take the next left." Knowing the way is what frees you from the map's wording. Paraphrase works the same way.

The cover-the-source test is a check on a paraphrase: read the passage until you understand it, cover it, write the idea from memory, then compare your sentence's skeleton against the original.

Here are the steps in order.

Read the passage until you understand it well enough to explain it to a friend.
Cover it, close the tab, or turn the page over.
Write the idea from memory, in your own words and your own sentence shape.
Uncover the source and compare. If your sentence lines up with the original slot by slot, start again.
Put any phrase you kept word for word in quotation marks, and credit the source.

Worked example — running the test on the patch and on the paraphrase. Both versions are the illustrative ones from earlier in this chapter.

Cover Strunk's passage and read the patch alone. Every slot still lines up with Strunk's: "Vigorous" → "Strong", "concise" → "brief", "contain" → "have", "unnecessary" → "unneeded" four times, "drawing" → "picture". The skeleton is Strunk's, so the test says start again.
Now read the acceptable paraphrase: "Strunk argues that good prose keeps only the words that do work, comparing a padded sentence to a drawing with stray lines or a machine with spare parts."
Compare it with the original. It is one sentence instead of two. It opens with a signal phrase, not with Strunk's verdict. It says "keeps only the words that do work" instead of listing what a sentence "should contain". It is about the same length, 28 words against 34.
Check the shared words. "Drawing" and "machine" survive, but they are ordinary words for the things being compared, not Strunk's distinctive phrasing. The meaning is his; the sentence is the writer's.

In words: the patch fails the test because its skeleton is Strunk's. The paraphrase passes because the writer understood the idea and rebuilt it, and it still credits Strunk.

Misconception check — writing the paraphrase with the source open. Students often paraphrase with the source beside them, glancing back after every phrase. It is tempting because it feels careful. But glancing back pulls the source's words and order into your sentence, and that is how most patchwriting happens. The cure is to cover the source while you write, and to look only when you check.

In practice (your tools). In your word processor, put the source passage in one window and your draft in another, but minimize the source while you write your paraphrase. When you check, open the source again and use Find (Ctrl+F, or Command+F on a Mac) to search for any three-word string from your paraphrase. If Find matches a string in the source, either rewrite that part or put it in quotation marks.

7. Integrate the running draft's quotation

A quotation without a frame is like a guest who walks into the room and starts talking without being introduced. The reader does not know who is speaking or why it matters. The running draft solves that with four parts.

Here is the running draft's sentence (Model A, Stage 5). The fragment inside the single quotation marks is copied exactly from the abstract of Beland and Murphy's article; the rest of the sentence is the student's draft, illustrative and attributed to no one.

"As Beland and Murphy argue, 'the unstructured presence of phones has detrimental effects on certain students' (61), and the students they identify are the ones a college most needs to reach."

Worked example — the four parts of one integrated sentence. Each part does one job.

The signal phrase: "As Beland and Murphy argue," names the authors and tells the reader that what follows is their claim.
The fragment: "the unstructured presence of phones has detrimental effects on certain students", copied exactly from the article's abstract. It is short, and its wording matters, because "certain students" is the detail the draft builds on.
The page: "(61)", the first page of the article, where the abstract appears.
The writer's own analysis: "and the students they identify are the ones a college most needs to reach." This clause is the student's thinking, connecting the source to the draft's claim.

In words: the signal phrase introduces, the fragment brings exact evidence, the page lets a reader find it, and the analysis makes it serve the draft. Leave out the last part and the sentence only reports the source.

Why does the page stand alone? The authors are named in the signal phrase, so the parentheses carry only the page. Without the signal phrase, the same citation would read "(Beland and Murphy 61)". Next week explains the full rule; for now, notice that the citation and the signal phrase work together.

Notice the quotation marks, too. The whole running-draft sentence is shown here in double quotation marks because you are reading it as an example. Inside it, Beland and Murphy's words sit in single quotation marks, the form for a quotation inside a quotation. In the draft itself, their words would sit in ordinary double quotation marks.

Misconception check — the quotation does the arguing. Students often think that once the quotation is in, the paragraph has made its point. It is tempting because the source sounds authoritative. But a reader still needs to hear why the quotation matters to your claim. The cure is to give the writer the last word: after every quotation, add a sentence or a clause of your own analysis.

Pause and think. Choose one of these two options.

(a) look at the running draft's sentence and say which of its four parts you would miss most if it were cut, and why.
(b) think of a time someone quoted you, or a friend, out of context, and say what a signal phrase or a sentence of explanation would have fixed.

8. Take a first look at synthesis

Think about two friends recommending a restaurant. One says it is always full. The other says the cook trained in her grandmother's kitchen. Each fact is fine alone, but together they tell you something neither one says: the place is busy because the food is good. Putting sources together that way has a name.

Synthesis is putting two or more sources in conversation around the writer's own point, so the reader sees how they agree, extend, or push against each other instead of meeting them as a list.

Worked example — the same two sources, in a list and in conversation. Both versions are illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one.

In a list: "Amy writes about state laws. Beland and Murphy did a study. The Department for Education has guidance." Each source sits alone, and the reader has to guess how they connect.
In conversation: "Amy reports that a majority of U.S. states now ban or regulate phones in schools, and Beland and Murphy's study suggests who such rules may help most: the lowest-achieving students."
What changed: the second version uses two sources in one sentence. The first source shows what is happening; the second suggests why it might matter; the writer's sentence says how they connect.

In words: a list hands the reader a pile of sources. Synthesis hands the reader a connection, and the connection is the writer's own thinking.

This is only a first look. Week 12 builds a whole research-based argument out of sources in conversation. For now, practice one move: when you bring in a second source, say how it relates to the first.

Misconception check — synthesis as a summary of each source in turn. Students often think synthesis means summarizing Source A, then Source B, then Source C. It is tempting because each summary is accurate. But a row of summaries is still a list. The cure is to write at least one sentence that uses two sources at once and names their relationship: one supports, extends, or complicates the other.

9. Check the machine: the quotation that does not exist

Chatbots are fast at producing quotations, and the quotations look perfect: quotation marks, an author, a title, a page. That polish is the problem. A chatbot asked for a quotation with an author, a title, and a page will often produce one that does not exist.

A fabricated quotation is words presented in quotation marks as a source's own that the real text does not contain, often supplied by a chatbot with an author, a title, and a page attached.

The course's rule for every chatbot moment holds here too: the tool drafts, and the writer judges. A chatbot can help you brainstorm a signal verb or test whether a paraphrase is too close. It cannot be trusted to tell you what a source says.

Worked example — testing a chatbot's quotation. The exchange is described in words, as an illustration written for this course and attributed to no product.

The request: you ask a chatbot for "a quotation from Strunk about concise writing, with the title and page number."
The reply: a polished sentence in quotation marks, credited to Strunk and The Elements of Style, with a page number attached.
The search: you open the Project Gutenberg text and use Find to search for the quoted words. They are not there.
The warning sign you could have caught earlier: the Gutenberg text has no stable page numbers, so a page number for it was suspicious from the start.
The repair: you drop the chatbot's sentence and quote Strunk's real words, "Vigorous writing is concise.", copied from the Gutenberg text.

In words: formatting is not proof. The only proof that a quotation is real is finding its words in the real text.

Misconception check — "the chatbot's quotation is real because it is formatted." Students often trust a quotation that arrives with an author, a title, and a page. It is tempting because those details look like the work of checking. But a chatbot can produce every one of them without opening any source. The cure is the Find test: if the real text does not contain the words, the quotation does not go in your essay. A limitation worth knowing: the same caution applies to a chatbot's paraphrase or summary of a source, which can stretch a careful finding.

In practice (your tools). Before any quotation enters your draft, open the source itself, not a chatbot's description of it. Use Find (Ctrl+F, or Command+F on a Mac) to search for four or five words from the middle of the quotation. If Find locates them, copy the words from the source and paste them into your word processor, so you never retype them. If Find does not locate them, the quotation is out.

Key terms

quotation — A source's exact words, copied from the real text and set in quotation marks, used when the precise wording matters. (first used: 1. Meet the three honest moves: quotation, paraphrase, summary)
paraphrase — A restatement of one specific passage in the writer's own words and own sentence structure, at about the original's length, credited to the source in the same way as a quotation. (first used: 1. Meet the three honest moves: quotation, paraphrase, summary)
three honest moves — The three ways a writer can bring a source into a draft while showing whose idea it is: quotation, paraphrase, and summary. (first used: 1. Meet the three honest moves: quotation, paraphrase, summary)
signal phrase — The lead-in, usually placed right before a quotation or paraphrase, that names the source and sets up what comes next, such as "As Strunk argues". (first used: 3. Lead in with a signal phrase)
signal verb — The verb inside a signal phrase, such as argues, reports, finds, warns, or concedes, chosen to match what the source is actually doing. (first used: 3. Lead in with a signal phrase)
attribution — Telling the reader where an idea or a set of words came from; it is owed for quoted words and for paraphrased or summarized ideas alike. (first used: 4. Credit ideas, not only words)
plagiarism — Presenting another person's ideas, words, or work as your own, including restating someone's argument or distinctive language without credit. (first used: 4. Credit ideas, not only words)
common knowledge — A fact found in many sources, known to many readers, and not in dispute, which a writer may state without a citation; when unsure whether a fact qualifies, cite it. (first used: 4. Credit ideas, not only words)
patchwriting — Keeping a source's sentence and swapping in synonyms or shuffling a clause; it is plagiarism even with a citation attached, because the sentence shape is still borrowed. (first used: 5. Name the trap: patchwriting)
cover-the-source test — A check on a paraphrase: read the passage until you understand it, cover it, write the idea from memory, then compare your sentence's skeleton against the original. (first used: 6. Run the cover-the-source test)
synthesis — Putting two or more sources in conversation around the writer's own point, so the reader sees how they agree, extend, or push against each other instead of meeting them as a list. (first used: 8. Take a first look at synthesis)
fabricated quotation — Words presented in quotation marks as a source's own that the real text does not contain, often supplied by a chatbot with an author, a title, and a page attached. (first used: 9. Check the machine: the quotation that does not exist)

Summary

Quotation keeps the wording, paraphrase keeps one passage's idea, and summary keeps a long source's gist.
Quote for wording, paraphrase for one idea, summarize for a whole source.
A signal phrase names the source; its verb says what the source is doing.
Credit every idea you borrow, not only every quotation; common knowledge is the one exception.
Patchwriting swaps words and keeps the skeleton; it is plagiarism even with a citation.
Cover the source, write from memory, then check the skeleton.
An integrated quotation has a signal phrase, an exact fragment, a page, and your analysis.
Synthesis puts sources in conversation, not in a list.
A chatbot's quotation is unverified until you find its words in the real text.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

Here is an illustrative sentence from a community garden's newsletter, attributed to no one: "Volunteers who water in the early morning lose less water to evaporation than those who water at midday." A student writes: "Volunteers who water early in the morning lose less water to evaporating than people who water at noon." Is this a paraphrase or patchwriting? Explain using the cover-the-source test.
A student is writing about a nursing study of hand-washing on hospital wards (illustrative). Which move fits each job?
- (a) The study's memorable four-word phrase for its main finding, which the student plans to analyze.
- (b) The study's whole method and results, in one sentence.
- (c) One paragraph from the discussion section that the student needs in her own voice.
Which of these needs a citation in an essay for a general audience?
- (a) Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address in 1863.
- (b) An illustrative city survey found that most bus riders want earlier weekend service.
- (c) A columnist's argument that libraries should stay open later.
A student writes: "The transit report proves that every rider wants a new route." The report (illustrative) found that a majority of riders surveyed on two lines asked for one. Rewrite the signal phrase so the verb and the scope match the source.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

It is patchwriting. Cover the original and compare the skeleton. The student's sentence keeps the same subject ("Volunteers who water"), the same order (early versus midday), and the same comparison ("lose less water to"). It makes only small swaps: "evaporation" to "evaporating", "midday" to "noon", and "those" to "people". An honest paraphrase rebuilds the sentence, for example: "Watering at dawn wastes less water than watering in the heat of the day, because less of it dries up before it soaks in," and it credits the newsletter. This item catches the "changing a few words makes a paraphrase" misconception.
Each job has its own move, and all three need credit. This item catches the paraphrase-versus-summary mix-up.
- (a) Quote it. The exact four words are the point, and she plans to analyze them.
- (b) Summarize it. One sentence covering a whole study is the gist of something long.
- (c) Paraphrase it. One passage, restated in her own words and sentence shape, stays at about its length.
Two of the three need a citation. This item catches "I only cite direct quotes."
- (a) Common knowledge. The date appears in many sources, most readers know it, and no one disputes it.
- (b) Cite it. It is one survey's finding.
- (c) Cite it too. An argument is an idea that belongs to its writer, even if you put it in your own words.
One good rewrite: "The transit report found that a majority of riders surveyed on two lines asked for a new route." Found matches a survey result where proves overstated it, and "a majority of riders surveyed on two lines" matches the report's scope where "every rider" stretched it. This item catches the overstating signal verb.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz — and next week, MLA Documentation explains the rule behind every in-text citation you wrote here.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com