https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCIi7hKyEcQ
Essay 2 Instructions Essay 2 Instructions: Quoting and Paraphrasing Paraphrase (idea/information from source, but put into your own words): 6 Steps to Effective Paraphrasing (from the OWL) Reread the original passage until you understand its full meaning. Set the original aside, and write your paraphrase on a note card. Jot down a few words below your paraphrase to remind you later how you envision using this material. At the top of the note card, write a key word or phrase to indicate the subject of your paraphrase. Check your rendition with the original to make sure that your version accurately expresses all the essential information in a new form. Use quotation marks to identify any unique term or phraseology you have borrowed exactly from the source. Record the source (including the page) on your note card so that you can credit it easily if you decide to incorporate the material into your paper. Quote (exact wording of author): Direct Quotations Direct quotations involve incorporating another person's exact words into your own writing. 1. Capitalize the first letter of a direct quote when the quoted material is a complete sentence. Ex.: Mr. Johnson, who was working in his field that morning, said, "The alien spaceship appeared right before my own two eyes." 2. Do not use a capital letter when the quoted material is a fragment or only a piece of the original material's complete sentence. Ex.: Although Mr. Johnson has seen odd happenings on the farm, he stated that the spaceship "certainly takes the cake" when it comes to unexplainable activity. 3. Quotations are most effective if you use them sparingly and keep them relatively short. Too many quotations in a research paper will get you accused of not producing original thought or material (they may also bore a reader who wants to know primarily what YOU have to say on the subject) 4. Always use a Signal Phrase: a phrase, clause, or even sentence which leads into a quotation or statistic. These generally include the speaker/author’s name and some justification for using him or her as an expert in this context; it may also help establish the context for the quotation. Never leave a quotation by itself (a freestanding quote). Example of a quote set up with a signal phrase: According to Alex Johnson, president of the Citrus Council of Florida, “This year’s crops have suffered greatly due to infestations of insects.” Which is the best signal phrase for the following quote? Miles Lipman, executive senior vice president of Wells Fargo, complained, “The media has simplified the concept of creating separate accounts.” Miles Lipman said, “The media has simplified the concept of creating separate accounts.” MLA Handout ***IF YOU NEED A DEPENDABLE, UP-TO-DATE STYLE GUIDE, GO TO https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_formatting_and_style_guide.html IN-TEXT CITATIONS We must use in-text citations when we engage with outside sources. It doesn’t matter if you’re paraphrasing, summarizing, or quoting directly; we need always to properly credit the outside sources. It is all pretty simple, if you keep it simple. If possible, try FIRST to use the author’s last name in the signal phrase. When you do this, you do not need the citation. If you do not use the author’s name in the signal phrase, then provide the citation. It all boils down to letting your reader know where the information came from. 1. Examples of using the author’s name in your sentence, with a signal phrase: In what has become a proverb from modern literature, Solomon Getty writes that if “the Greeks invented tragedy, the Romans the epistle and the Renaissance the sonnet, our generation invented a new literature, that of testimony.” Getty asks a critical question: “When does internet surveillance cross the line?” *Notice that the punctuation for the quotes is within the final quotation mark. 2. For this example, we have one author of an online article, so use just her last name when providing the citation. You do not need a page number because our article is an internet article. Here’s an example of not using our author’s name in a signal phrase, but instead providing a citation. One article mentioned the disturbing details about William Beach’s death: “At the hospital, blood poured from his mouth and nose, splattering sheets, bed rails and physicians” (Armour). According to one article, “In 2011, the FDA inspected 6 percent of domestic food producers and just 0.4 percent of importers. The FDA has had no rules for how often food producers must be inspected” (Armour). *Notice that the punctuation comes after the citation. THIS IS EASY. IN MOST CASES (MAYBE ALL) YOU’LL BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE IN-TEXT CITATION MODELS DESCRIBED ABOVE. Generally, in-text citations get trickier only in a couple of situations. ONE potentially tricky scenario involves what we call an “indirect source” Articles often contain the words of other experts, and you might for some reason want to use them. This occurs more commonly than you might think. If the author quoted somebody in her article, there’s probably a good reason: the information is important. Here’s how you include and cite the words from someone within the article other than the author: According to Debbie Frederick, William Beach’s daughter, “He died in terror and pain” (qtd. in Armour). *Notice that we did not include Debbie Frederick’s name in the citation; she is not the author. But since she is being quoted in the article, we let the reader know by including “qtd. in” before the author’s name. After all, the author’s name will be alphabetized in the works cited, not Debbie Frederick. ***Note: All these examples included quotations. If you decide to paraphrase, you must still include the citation after the information. Summary Schlosser tells the story of Lee Harding, a 22-year-old man living in Pueblo who, in 1997, came down with a “virulent” case of E. coli. Public health officials in Pueblo asked Harding to recall what he had eaten five days before his illness—which was severe and required hospitalization, but from which he recovered—and though Harding believed beef patties from Hudson Foods, which he and his family had eaten, could not be responsible (because only he got sick), Pueblo officials tested the patties and found the same virulent E. coli strain. Hudson Foods eventually recalled some of its products about a month later, but by that point, as Schlosser reports, “about 25 million pounds of the ground beef had already been eaten.” Schlosser describes the nature of these outbreaks in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s, and why food contamination in the era of factory farming and high-efficiency food production is so dangerous. In the pre-agribusiness era, the relatively small region served by smaller food-production companies meant that when disease-causing E. coli or Salmonella were found in food, far fewer people would be affected and the outbreak was much easier to respond to. But vast increases in the size of food-production facilities, coupled with slackened food regulations pushed through the federal and state governments sympathetic to the economic interests of agribusinesses, have increased the likelihood and scale of lethal food-born pathogens. Schlosser notes that, in the first half of the 20th century, hamburger-grade beef had a bad reputation for food cleanliness, since typically the least desirable parts of the least desirable cattle were slaughtered to make them. Although fast-food companies like White Castle, on the east coast, helped to destigmatize hamburger meat after the Second World War, problems still arose at fast-food outfits, including the notable Jack in the Box E. coli scandal of 1993, in which Jack in the Box employees accidentally served undercooked hamburgers that were laced with E. coli. Schlosser identifies several factors that most likely led to the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak in 1993, and to other, similar (if less noteworthy) cases since then. The primary vector for E. coli is fecal matter, and cattle at large feedlots are now fed a slurry of food that, instead of simply grain, can include bits and pieces of other animal matter, including bone, tissue, and feces. E. coli can enter the cows’ guts this way, and can then be “amplified” by the close quarters of large feedlots and meatpacking facilities, especially if these facilities are less than stellar in terms of cleanliness. Schlosser argues that the beef industry, since Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle in 1906, has sought to “deflect” any criticism the government or consumers might direct its way whenever outbreaks of virulent bacteria are caused by ground beef. By the 1980s, a cozy relationship between the beef industry and the USDA, the government agency responsible for ensuring that beef supplies are healthful, meant that the beef industry was essentially expected to self-monitor—with the consequence that enormous lapses were permitted along the production chain and that there was little governmental “teeth” to spur recalls when tainted meat was produced. But Schlosser writes that he believes some progress can be made, even within a system where government oversight of factory-farm meat production is minimal. David Theno, hired by Jack in the Box in the wake of the 1993 E. coli scandal, instituted a system of “performance-based grading” at all Jack in the Box locations, and made sure that managers were trained in proper food-handling and cooking techniques for meat. Although this process occurs just before meat is cooked—and not along the production line—both Theno and Schlosser seem to agree that a “performance-based” compliance system, with real consequences for failure to comply, can make for safer beef—and isn’t very expensive for the corporation in question. Schlosser notes the difficulties the USDA faces in demanding recalls of meat products—even beef that has been demonstrated to possess virulent strains of dangerous pathogens. Because of the meatpacking and processing companies’ leverage with the federal government—and with the aid of lobbyists who support various political campaigns of congressmen—the USDA is often forced to merely implore or cajole companies, rather than force or fine them, which means that the companies can then choose how and when to recall the meat. This leeway is ostensibly allowed by the government, and demanded by meat-processing companies, because the “trade secrets” of those companies’ meatpacking technologies must be protected. Schlosser notes that Bill Clinton introduced bills that would increase fines and penalties for companies producing tainted beef after the Jack in the Box scandal in 1993, but Republican congresses over the next several years consistently opposed these measures and sided with the meatpacking companies. Schlosser further notes that USDA inspectors, when they are present in meatpacking plants, are often so hopelessly behind the speed of the plants’ production that they cannot possibly account for the cleanliness of every stage of meat production. Meatpacking corporations argue that this state of affairs is OK—and have developed alternate technologies to make beef “safe,” including irradiation. Irradiated meat is treated with gamma rays