Re: discussion board post

by Cristian Medina - Saturday, May 13, 2017, 8:29 AM

Rhetorical Awareness: The document does attend to its purpose and the

audiences needs. It definitely responds and tries to find a way to fight the

murky water of plagiarism and tries to clarify what it is exactly and what it

isnt exactly. I definitely feel like you stuck to the prompt and addressed the

issue well.

Ethical Research: The document does a very good job in the grammar

department. The discussion board posting is MLA format. The writer did a

really good job making sure she used the in-text citations, when she cited

Jess Kapp and Mike Palmquist from our textbook. She also did a really

good job with integrating sources into the text.

Support/Evidence: You did a good job in the evidence department. I like

how you harkened to the two types of plagiarism, intended and

unintentional. I like how you ranked them also. I also agree that intended is

definitely worse, as in that case you are taking integrity into the fold and

intentionally disregarding and ignoring it. Due to this I feel the document is

objective and unbiased.

Organization: Although I thought your organization was good overall, I

think you might have an opportunity to work on some things. The fact that

the Introduction and Prompt was in bold kind of threw me off. I would say

just maybe not make it bold in general or maybe bold your section, because

at the end of the day thats what matters most. I also had a hard time finding

the revised section of your posting. This was just due to the heading being

on the bottom of the page, so that would probably be really easy to change

though