ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1592|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

LSAT-13-1-5

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-12-17 03:33:00 | 只看该作者

LSAT-13-1-5


Oscar: I have been accused of plagiarizing the work of Ethel Myers in my recent article. But that accusation is unwarranted. Although I admit I used passages from Myers’s book without attribution, Myers gave me permission in private correspondence to do so.


Millie: Myers cannot give you permission to plagiarize. Plagiarism is wrong, not only because it violates author’s rights to their own words, but also because it misleads readers: it is fundamentally a type of lie. A lie is no less a lie if another person agrees to the deception.


5(C).     Which of the following principles, if established, would justify Oscar’s judgment?


(A) A writer has no right to quote passage from another published source if the author of that other source has not granted the writer permission to do so.


(B) The writer of an article must cite the source of all passages that were not written by that writer if those passages are more than a few sentences long.


(C) Plagiarism is never justified, but writers are justified in occasionally quoting without attribution the work of other writers if the work quoted has not been published.


(D) An author is entitled to quote freely without attribution the work of a writer if that writer relinquishes his or her exclusive right to the material.(D)


(E) Authors are entitled to quote without attribution passages that they themselves have written and published in other books or articles.



Is it possible that Myers gave Oscar permission in private correspondence to use passages from Myer’s book means that Myers relinquishes her exclusive right to the material?


Why not A? A infers that if the author of that other source has granted the writer permission to do so ,a writer has right to quote passage from another published source


沙发
发表于 2004-12-17 06:06:00 | 只看该作者

firstly, Myers gave Oscar permission to use passages from Myer’s book does means he relinquish exclusive right of his book. exclusive means no others, just himself. If someone else is entiled the right, it is no longer a exclusive right.

secondly, I feel you have gone too much in inference. Do not read more out the passage than it states. Moreover, your inference of a is not necessarily true. In general, when you have a if-then statement, it allows you to infer something in just two case:

1. you can infer that "then" condition is met from knowing that "if " condition has occurs

2. you can infer from knowing that "then" condition is not met that "if " condition does not occurs

above generalization is plagiarizing a nn's post, can not indicate the true author because I don't remenber.

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2004-12-17 06:40:00 | 只看该作者

I misunderstood the "exclusive right " as "exlusive right to be the author"instead of  "exclusive right to use the passage". I had thought Myers must be insane if he gives up his exclusive right to be the author just because he gave Oscar permission to use his passage

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

所属分类: 法学院申请

近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-1-4 05:17
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部