In, “The Wrongs of Internet Plagiarism:
The Quick Arguments” by Brook Sadler, he talks about how plagiarism is
obviously a bad thing for students, even if they earned a better grade or not.
In the article, “Four Reasons to Be Happy about Internet plagiarism”, Russell
Hunt believes that plagiarism is an okay thing to do because students need some
extra help in order to pass. I feel like Sadler presented the best argument
because not only did she give a clear face to why plagiarism shouldn’t happen,
but she also talked about why it wasn’t fair, how it betrays others, how it
wont benefit you at all and how it wont help you at all in your career. Lastly,
Sadler gives a solution to the problem of plagiarism where as Russell Hunt does
not. Hunt barely states any
reasons on why plagiarism isn’t bad and how its not helpful in helping a
student understand plagiarism. The reasons he pointed out are not really
adequate to cover his argument, which is why Sadler has the better argument.
Hello Shortie,
ReplyDeleteI think Sadler has a better argument too. He also mentions that plagiarism is harming not only the students but also the society, as more and more people are relying on others work instead of their work. I feel like Hunt has a brief overview instead of an arguments or persuasive statement because the statement is not strong enough to convince readers to support plagiarism. I think Sadler's article should be read by every college students, for helping them to understand the impacts and problem when they plagiarise. I personally think there should be a more serious penalty for punishing plagiarism, just like what Sadler talks about in his article, serve penalties can stop people from plagiarising.
Thanks,
Adrian
I agree that Sadler makes the better argument because she clearly states her opinion on why plagiarism is not acceptable. She gave clear reasons that were easy to understand and accept and we can relate to as students, therefore, making her argument more reasonable and relatable. I think most of Hunt’s reasons are quite ridiculous. As I was reading his paper, I was thinking, “that is not always true for everyone.” He also used a bunch of analogies that just made the paper sound less professional that it was hard for me to take in the information and take it seriously.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you that Sadler made the better argument. She states many reasons why she thinks plagiarism is the wrong thing to do. Her reasons were clearly stated and was understandable, whereas Hunt's wasn't. Sadler also gave reasons on how it affects the student negatively. She said that it wasn't fair for other students that did their own work, yet the student that plagiarizes gets a better grade. When I was reading Hunt's article, I got a bit confused because his opinions of why plagiarism should be okay weren't clear. He was kind of all over the place with his reasons. Sadler definitely has a better argument that students can relate to than Hunt does.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone here in saying that Sadler has the better argument. Hunt does state that student's need help, but that does not mean to plagiarize. That is one of the key reasons why I believe Sadler's argument was better. And like you said, he also states a solution to fix the problem. Plagiarism has no benefit at all and instead just harms a student. They do not learn anything from it, receive (harsh) punishment for it, and it steals from others. I believe plagiarism is a serious problem and should be dealt with accordingly. Once someone is caught for plagiarism it can affect them their whole lives.
ReplyDelete