Plagiarism. YIKES!

This article made me afraid of citing my sources. Noah made great points that plagiarism is what is and not something that can be bent to meet the wishes of those who unintentionally partake. Noah’s links serve to provide a direct reference along with showing where he precisely got his information from. The links help to show the unaware audience what happened in the case along with evidence to back up the fact that she plagiarized despite her claim it was unintentional. I felt that many of the articles that were linked were helpful, whereas the link to the History News Network along with the Barnes’s and Nobel’s selling the book Goodwin plagiarized from was not relevant to the case. I would definitely use links to make an argument on a published website. Links give a direct source as well as where the information came from and other useful information relating to the subject. I thought that Noah’s claim was very persuasive, he simply showed the definition of plagiarism and then showed how Goodwin, despite her intent, committed plagiarism. I find the direct quotes from Goodwin’s writings and that from which she plagiarized to be most persuasive. The argument is simply a logically argument, if she committed plagiarism, then she copied and poorly cited their work. The similarities in the evidence are the only questionable part of the argument, which appear to be closely related.