Please read the following statements (excerpt from an original source, and excerpt from a student's paper) and indicate whether it is considered plagiarism, and if so, what type of plagiarism.
Original Source Material:
The study of learning derives from essentially two sources. Because learning involves the acquisition of knowledge, the first concerns the nature of knowledge and how we come to know things…. The second source in which modern learning theory is rooted concerns the nature and representation of mental life.
References: Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Student Version:
The study of learning derives from essentially two sources. The first concerns the nature of knowledge and how we come to know things. The second source concerns the nature and representation of mental life.
References: Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Answer:
It is not considered plagiarism
Explanation
It is not plagiarism because the student reference the real owner of the idea.
And the student also paraphrase the statement without copy the original word for word.
The correct answer should be
<span>abigail wanted to get even with her for firing her
there was a lot of bad blood between the people there and they wanted to have their revenge against one another which is why the trials began.</span>
A foil is the near complete opposite of the main character (whichever character they want you to find a foil for).
Rainsford and Whitney were good hunting friends with numerous similar interests. They could not be foils because of how close in similarity they were. Even when they disagreed on how animals felt about being hunted, Whitney seemed open to and intrigued by Rainsford's points and way of thinking.
Ivan is a near irrelevant character, being a mere Cossack who follows whatever General Zaroff says. He is mindless and has almost zero traits to even compare to Rainsford, let alone any traits aside from a mindless follower to begin with.
The answer would be General Zaroff. This is almost like the cliche protagonist vs antagonist foil. Both of them are hunters, but different kinds. Zaroff got bored with animals and wanted to hunt human people instead, whereas Rainsford had enjoyed the thrill of an animal hunt and thinks that the hunting of people is murder. Zaroff is more heartless and cold, a killer, if you will. Rainsford seems to think highly of actual people, and had no interest in playing Zaroff's game.
He is reminded of man's corruption after seeing the Brobdingnagians' enlarged human features. He reminded of man's corruption in England but he saw a difference in the Brobdingnagians' morale of living. This event occurred in the "Gulliver's Travels Part II: A Voyage to Brobdingnag" satirical novel written by John Swift<span>. This novel is the sequel of "Gulliver's Travels".</span>
