Plagiarism Quiz – Fall 2015
Remember: the underlying principles behind prohibiting plagiarism in educational institutions are (1) to ensure that no
one takes credit for work that is not his or her own, and (2) to avoid awarding credit for the same work more than once.
Question 1
Students can avoid plagiarism by reordering sentences in a paragraph or words in a sentence.
True or False? (Circle one)
Question 2
Students need not cite to ideas or sentences by anonymous or unidentified authors.
True or False? (Circle one)
Question 3
Students must cite any original source used, regardless of media (e.g. printed book, online blog).
True or False? (Circle one)
Question 4
Original source:
Voting began in America with the use of pre-printed paper ballots, which featured the names of candidates already
marked. Voters would simply select which pre-marked ballot to turn in rather than filling out their own blank ballot.
Because the problems of vote-buying as well as other scandals manifested themselves early on, the U.S. soon adopted a
secret balloting system based on the Australian model, in which a voter privately marked their ballot for their chosen
candidates. From Joshua F. Clowers’, I E-vote, U I-Vote, Why Can’t We All Just Vote?!: A Survey of The Changing
Face of the American Election, 41 GONZAGA LAW REVIEW 61, 65 (2006).
Student paper:
Voting in the United States started with pre-printed ballots, though this process was revamped once it became clear
that the system enabled vote buying and other types of fraud.
Has this student plagiarized?
a.
b.
c.
d.
No. This is a commonly known fact, so this is a permissible use of the source.
No. The student edited the sentence, and therefore has not met the minimum requirement for plagiarism.
Yes. The student has used someone else’s words and has not properly attributed the source.
Yes. The student has paraphrased someone else’s words and has not properly attributed the source.
Question 5
Original source:
The sheer increase in the amount of information available, coupled with the rise in searches for this kind of
information, means that the blurring of the lines between public and private lives is only going to become more
commonplace, and is likely to affect more careers. What is not clear yet is whether this information is going to be
used in formal reviews of character and fitness for bar admissions. From Dina Epstein’s Have I Been Googled?:
Character and Fitness in the Age of Google, Facebook, and YouTube, 21 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS
715, 725 (2008).
Student paper:
"The sheer increase in the amount of information available, coupled with the rise in searches for this kind of
information, means that the blurring of the lines between public and private lives is only going to become more
commonplace."1
Has this student plagiarized?
a. No. This is a direct quote, but it is properly quoted and attributed.
b. Yes. The student has used someone else’s words and merely attributing the source is insufficient. S/he should
also have rephrased the words.
c. Yes. The student has paraphrased someone else’s words and has not properly attributed the source.
Question 6
Original source:
Beyond the amount of information available, what is particularly noteworthy about this new era is that a character and
fitness committee may be alerted to potentially-illegal behavior long before a trier-of-fact is involved. In earlier days,
controversial behavior, inappropriate comments or offensive jokes were generally not publicly available unless a
third-party became involved. From Dina Epstein’s, Have I Been Googled?: Character and Fitness in the Age of
Google, Facebook, and YouTube, 21 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS 715, 725 (2008).
Student paper:
In this new era, a character and fitness committee may be alerted to potentially-illegal behavior long before a trier-offact is involved.2
Has this student plagiarized?
a. No. The student edited the sentence, and has taken so little of the original source that s/he has not met the
minimum requirement for plagiarism
b. No. The student has paraphrased and has properly attributed the source.
c. Yes. The student has used someone else’s words and has not properly attributed the source.
d. Yes. The student has paraphrased someone else’s words and has not properly attributed the source.
1
Dina Epstein, Have I Been Googled?: Character and Fitness in the Age of Google, Facebook, and YouTube, 21 GEORGETOWN
JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS 715, 725 (2008).
2
Dina Epstein, Have I Been Googled?: Character and Fitness in the Age of Google, Facebook, and YouTube, 21 Georgetown Journal
of Legal Ethics Summer 715, 726 (2008).
Question 7
Original source:
Many people criticize the umpire-judge analogy because the rules of baseball are much clearer than those of
constitutional law and give umpires less discretion than judges have. This criticism is, I think, overstated. Umpires
exercise a great deal of discretion over the size of the strike zone, when to throw players and managers out of the
game, and other important issues. As in legal theory, there are even broad philosophical disagreements as to the best
method of umpiring. For example, some believe that the umpires should strictly enforce the rules as written (a position
roughly analogous to textualism in legal interpretation). Others adhere to longstanding traditions that in some cases
diverge from the letter of the rules (e.g. - the rule against catchers blocking the plate is often left unenforced); this
is similar to precedent-based reasoning in law. There are also some umpire practices that seem analogous to "purposebased" legal interpretation. From Volokh Conspiracy blog http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_07_272008_08_02.shtml#1217717078
Student paper:
There are some umpire practices that seem analogous to "purpose-based" legal interpretation.
Has the student plagiarized?
a. No. This is from a blog, which represents only off-the-cuff thoughts, and therefore, this is a permissible use of
the source.
b. No. This is such a general statement and a generally known fact that it doesn't meet the minimum requirements
for plagiarism
c. Yes. The student has used someone else’s words and has not properly attributed the source.
d. Yes. The student has paraphrased someone else’s words and has not properly attributed the source.
Question 8
A student can be found guilty of plagiarizing from him- or her-self.
True or False? (Circle one)
End of Quiz
Reference
From the Georgetown University Law Center Student Handbook, 2015-16 (pp. 105-106)
Plagiarism
Every law student must grasp the overriding importance of scrupulous honesty in the study and practice of law. In the
presentation of written work, such honesty is the soul of academic integrity and, for the lawyer, at the heart of credible
and effective assistance of counsel. The damage to reputation (and to a cause) which springs from deceit in the
presentation of ideas will commonly prove both devastating and enduring. One becomes known as untruthful, or at least
untrustworthy, and in either case careless of the rights of others. These are contingencies devoutly to be avoided.
This notion of deceit is not easily translated into an all-inclusive description of plagiarism. The Law Center, therefore, has
not attempted a definition so meticulously crafted as to be worthy of inclusion in a criminal code. But surely some central
propositions are declarable, and understandable, and no student can fail to be aware of the broad thrust of the notion that
the work of others must never be claimed as one’s own.
Here are several of those propositions. The use of another’s work typically takes the form of either a direct quotation,
where the other author’s exact words are used, or a paraphrasing, where the true author’s ideas or language are recast in
the words of the borrower. Both these forms require that he or she who thus uses the work of another person give
adequate credit to that person. Perhaps as important as the fact that the credit is given is the manner in which it is given.
Where exact words are used, they must be designated as a quotation (quotation marks or indentation) and footnoted in
the obligatory form, identifying source and precise page of location. Similar attribution is called for in the use of charts,
tables, diagrams, and like presentations of rather more visual evidence, when originated by someone else. Paraphrasing,
too, demands that the paraphraser candidly and fully account for the derivation of that which the paraphraser has
reworded. As a general proposition, prolonged paraphrasing is to be discouraged, but when lengthy paraphrasing does
occur the true source is not sufficiently cited when it is cited only at the end, and generally. The rule should rather be that
each discrete subportion of the material thus used receive its own recognition, in quite precise form, including page
citation.
Of course, matters of general knowledge, and terms so commonly employed as to have entered the public domain need
not be footnoted,9 just as this brief essay does not footnote the widely recognized truths appearing in the foregoing lines.
But we strongly agree that, in any case involving the slightest doubt, you will be better served to grant rather than to
withhold recognition of your dependency on the work of another. Attributions that are arguably unnecessary in these
marginal instances will at the very least direct the reader to material which could be useful, and so advance the possibility
for learning.
Finally, note that plagiarism can be said to have occurred without any affirmative showing that the student’s use of
another’s work was intentional. Intent is presumed in any disciplinary case where the source of the material is both plain
and unattributed. It will be for the affected student to demonstrate that the copying or restatement was, in any such case,
innocent.
Forewarned is forearmed (no citation needed).