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 is D. Considering the other options all speak about horses and not clothing, this is the only logical conclusion, haha.
<span>"Broken electronics...globe."
</span><span>"Many electronics....harmful chemicals."
These support the claim because they both address why E-waste is harmful. The cell phone reason is more about people not having them rather than their harm to the ecosystems. Cans, plastic, and paper are not considered E-waste so it doesn't support the claim.</span>
In May 1883, the 13 <span>year old Mohandas was married to 14-year-old Kasturbai Makhanji Kapadia in an arranged child marriage, according to the custom of the region at that time. In the process, he lost a year at school.</span>
