Hi ‘professor faith’, can you rewrite my essay, I just want to trust your work again, please write a plagiarism free essay otherwise, I have to pay high cost for this if professor will again comment “plagiarism “
~I don’t want professional essay just a undergraduate essay with proper citations and page number
~Please include quotations from the article
~Please do consider the comments below
After a careful reading of this paper, I believe it has been generated using AI tools. I reach this position based on the following observations:
1. It has virtually no spelling or grammar errors where human writers, especially undergraduates, will normally make at least a small number.2. Despite the above, the sources are not cited correctly according to course guidelines and Chicago Style. It is extremely unlikely that such a careful writer in the main text would be so sloppy and inaccurate with citations in the footnotes. But it would be consistent with footnotes added to an AI-generated text.3. It uses virtually no quotations, though they are required for the assignment. Lack of direct quotation is typical of AI text.4. In a few places, odd synonyms are apparently substituted for the expected word, such as “plants show symptoms of self-awareness” where “signs” would be expected. Similarly, the last paragraph begins “to recapitulate” which seems to be a substitution for the more normal “in conclusion” which you were advised to avoid. All this indicates that a paraphraser of some kind was used or that synonyms were sought for words here and there after the AI text had been generated.5. In several places, no source is given where one is needed and would have been used had it been written by a human author. EG: absorption of nucleic acids in ingestion (p.3), the lower carbon footprint for plant-based diet (p.4).6. Sources that are cited are not cited with specific page numbers, suggesting that they were not used as actual sources (otherwise the specific page number would be given) but added on to suggest research was done when it was not.7. Your source Bhatla et al does not seem to be available online (which is required of this assignment) or the CBU library, so it seems unlikely to have been your actual source. Again, it seems to have been added to make it appear as though a superficially plausible source were used.8. The citation for Kustar and Patino-Echeverri doesn’t make sense since it comes after a description of what Smith says. It appears as though the source was inserted here without a full understanding of the sentence that the source supposedly cited.9. The source Hopwood et al doesn’t seem to say what it is cited it as saying (that vegetarians seek to live in harmony with nature). Their study concludes that health is the main motivation for vegetarianism. Harmony with nature is not discussed in their work.10. According to the Word file information, the total editing time of the document was 2 minutes. This suggests that most of the text was pasted in en masse.
Each of these alone could likely be explained away, but taken together they give overwhelming evidence of a paper written by AI with bogus citations to make it appear that it is a legitimate research paper. This represents a Level 3 breach of CBU’s academic integrity policy.
This paper is assessed as Not Submitted for the purpose of the tiered assessment. It may not be rewritten.
If you wish to discuss the matter with me live via Teams, please suggest some times you are available (Wed and Thurs afternoons are best for me) and I will set up the meeting. If I don’t hear from you within a week, I will provide my full report on this paper to the Dean. Please note that while I am willing to discuss this paper with you and listen to potential explanations, I will not change the assessment based simply on your desire for me to do so, nor will I alter it simply because you assert that I have erred.
I hope you will learn from this experience and submit a genuine paper for the next assignment.
Please consider the comments of the professor
Consider the essays linked below. Read each of them and try to understand clearly the argument they are making.
Choose one of them and write an essay in which you argue against the case that’s being made in the original. You must support your position with research, but more importantly, your essay must provide your own analysis and must engage the specific arguments of the original author and paper. This means paying close attention to the specific arguments, quoting the original accurately and frequently, that are present.
Do not simply write an essay on the same topic (eg if the essay were about reforming medical school admissions in Canada, you would not just write a general essay about medical school admissions in Canada).
Do not write an essay that supports the position of the original author’s position. You must counter-argue.
Do not dismiss the author’s view as mere opinion or the product of bias. Really engage thoughtfully.
Bear in mind that these essays have been chosen to be accessible. Such essays have limitations on their length and complexity. Thus, while you could legitimately argue that an essay is, say, misleading in its use of evidence, do not simply critique the essay for not providing more sources or not going on at greater length. Really try to grapple with the arguments as they are presented.
Here are the essays you can use:
Why it’s Impossible to Actually Be a Vegetarian,” by Andrew Smith
Notes and Formatting
Your paper must be original and must be properly cited in Chicago style footnotes with no bibliography or list of references.
Your footnotes must be created using the footnote function in Word. Do not simply type text into the footer of the page, for example.
All citations must have page or paragraph numbers and a working URL or DOI so that the use of the source can be verified.
Essays should be double spaced with at least 1-inch margins. Use a sans-serif font such as Calibri, not a serif font like Times New Roman. New paragraphs should be indicated with an indent, not a space. Essays should list your name, the course code and section, and the date at the top left of the first page. Essays should have a title centred over the main text, but not a separate title page. Remember to use footnotes, not endnotes, and not any manner of parenthetical citation style (such as MLA or APA).
Essays must not use point form, numbered arguments, or subheadings.
Submitting
Submit the paper as a Word (.doc or .docx) file, not as any other format such as PDF, Works etc
Required length: 1000 words, not including footnotes or front matter.
Criteria for Recognition
[Feedback for this paper will include an indication as to whether each criterion is met in a PDF feedback file. Review that feedback carefully.]
Is within 10% of the assigned length, not including footnotes and front matter, and without excessive quotation.
Is formatted according to course guidelines (font, inclusion of course info, margins etc).
Has an original title (eg not “English essay” or “Assignment One” or just the name of the article, or the like).
Has an introduction that sets out a relevant thesis—your position or intended argument (in this case what you will argue about the essay you’ve chosen), not simply a description of what is going to be considered.
Has a series of body paragraphs that present relevant arguments and includes properly cited, detailed evidence (including quotations from the essay you’re countering and secondary sources as needed) in each body paragraph. Notice that citations of secondary sources must be clear: it must be evident what you’ve taken from each source you cite.
Has a conclusion that does NOT say “In conclusion” or “In summary” or the like.
Has a reasonably limited number of typos and errors of grammar and style.
Avoids grammatical first person (“I would think that…”) and second person (“you can see how…”)
Avoids expressions of personal belief or opinion.
Uses a moderate, objective tone.
Uses footnotes for citations without a bibliography and uses them correctly according to Chicago Style and course guidelines.
Distinction
Distinction can be earned with particularly brilliant discussion and analysis.
