PLAGIARISM WORKSHEET
Instructions: Below is an original passage from a source followed by five paraphrases of it.
For each of paraphrase, explain why it does or does not constitute plagiarism.
Original Source and Passage
Guillebaud, John and Pip Hayes. “Population Growth and Climate Change: Universal
Access to Family Planning Should be the Priority.” The Well-Crafted Argument: A
Guide and Reader. Fred D. White and Simone J. Billings. 4th edition. Boston:
Wadsworth, 2011. 97-100. Print.
The world’s population now exceeds 6700 million, and humankind’s consumption of
fossil fuels, fresh water, crops, fish, and forests exceeds supply. These facts are
connected. The annual increase in population of about 79 million means that every week
1.5 million people need food and somewhere to live. This amounts to a huge new city
each week, somewhere, which destroys wildlife habitats and augments world fossil fuel
consumption. Every person born adds to greenhouse gas emissions, and escaping
poverty is impossible without these emissions increasing.
Paraphrase #1
The population of the world is approaching 7 billion, and mankind’s consumption of fossil
fuels, clean water, agricultural products, fish, and timber exceeds supply. This is all
connected. Every year the population increases by about 79 million, meaning that 1.5
million new people need food shelter each week. That’s like a huge new city appearing each
week, which takes heavy toll on wildlife habitats and inflates world fossil fuel consumption.
Each new birth adds to greenhouse gas emissions, and so does every effort to rise out of
poverty.
Is this plagiarism? Why or why not?
Paraphrase #2
We all know that the world’s population is rapidly increasing. We also know that natural
resources are being consumed at unsustainable rates. But most of us do not think much
about the deep connections between these two facts; we do not think about the
environmental impact of 79 million new people every year. “This amounts to a huge new
city each week, somewhere, which destroys wildlife habitats and augments world fossil fuel
consumption.”
Is this plagiarism? Why or why not?
Paraphrase #3
As the world’s population approaches 7 billion, our consumption of natural resources like
fossil fuels, clean water, fish, and timber is rapidly exceeding the supply. We all know this,
but most of us do not really think about the deep environmental impact of population
growth. Each year, a population increase of about 79 million means that 1.5 million new
people per week need food and shelter. As John Guillebaud and Pip Hayes point out, “This
amounts to a huge new city each week, somewhere, which destroys wildlife habitats and
augments world fossil fuel consumption” (97).
Is this plagiarism? Why or why not?
Paraphrase #4
The world’s population is currently approaching 7 billion at the rapid rate of 79 million new
people per year. At the same time, human consumption of vital natural resources has
reached unsustainable rates that are only increasing. Most of us are, on some level, aware of
these two facts, but we generally do not think about the deep and disturbing connection
between them. Every week the equivalent of a city the size of Philadelphia simply appears
out of nowhere. It’s difficult to imagine the effects of this on wildlife habitats, fresh water
supplies, and soil depletion, not to mention the consumption of fossil fuels. Each new
person contributes to greenhouse gas emissions; and as populations rise out of poverty, the
“carbon footprint” of each individual expands. In short, population growth is at the very
core of our environmental problems.
Is this plagiarism? Why or why not?
Paraphrase #5
Most of us are vaguely aware that overpopulation and environmental destruction are related,
but we tend not to dwell on the dire implications of this fact. As John Guillebaud and Pip
Hayes point out, “The annual increase in population of about 79 million means that every
week 1.5 million people need food and somewhere to live” (97). This is equivalent to the
sudden appearance, each week, of a city roughly the size of Philadelphia, which puts an
incredible strain on wildlife habitats and natural resource supplies. Additionally, each new
person contributes to greenhouse gas emissions; and as these emerging populations rise out
of poverty, their per capita emissions only increase (Guillebaud and Hayes 97). Clearly, we
need to do something about population growth if we want to preserve the environment.
Is this plagiarism? Why or why not?