Answer:
1. He also knew that the work would stand and not be eaten up by doubt in the night or dispersed by criticism on the morning after.
2. He was never hindered by the caprices of his brain and did not have to handle himself gingerly like a tuned guitar with loose pegs
Explanation:
<h2>Answer:</h2>
Society accepts any information as true without validation
<h2>Explanation:</h2>
According to Neil postman "There is nothing wrong with entertainment."
But at the same time, he explains that television is covering each and every aspect of society through its various programs. The problem with this entertainer is that none of it is being validated by masses who blindly believe on the stuff that is being shown to them by television.
Something is plagiarism if one takes material from another source and uses it without pointing toward that source, thus making it appear that it is originally written.
1. No, this is not plagiarism since she herself is the original writer, thus she is not stealing content from anybody else.<span>
2. According to Casey Berry of Sciences Ltd., "Only 6% of students wash their hands after class." This first choice is not plagiarism, since the student has cited the researcher Casey Berry, and has enclosed the directly copied statement in quotation marks. In contrast, the second choice mentions "a recent study" without any direct mention of who did the study, and it copies the conclusion verbatim without using quotation marks.
3. This is not plagiarism, since she places a hyperlink to the source, thus acknowledging that what she has written is not her own original material. However, this is considered bad practice, to simply link to a source without describing what it has done or which parts specifically you have taken from it. You would not probably be sued in court for plagiarism, but it is still advisable to describe what the source has done.
4. No, this is not plagiarism. He has used quotation marks for direct quotes. The paraphrased information does not need quotation marks. Hyperlinks and attributions have been provided for each, so there are no issues with this kind of writing.
5. Yes, this is plagiarism. The BlogMutt writer got information from another post (which may or may not have been original material, we do not know), and did not attribute that post. Furthermore, this write-up is for a customer, not merely for discussion in forums, so pretending that the information on the post is his own is not only plagiarism, but it is also business dishonesty as he is stealing someone's work and selling it to a customer as his own.</span>
<span>e. b and c only
As long as a speaker lets the audience know who the author of a study is, and gives a brief overview of their credentials or qualifications, the audience should be able to trust the information that the speaker is presenting, based on their credible research.</span>
B I think sorry if it not the right answer and sorry if am late
