I found question 3 and 5 interesting . In question 3, Dr. Bloch proposes the situation asking what students should perform to cite the article where the author uses the idea from the other article and the source of the idea can not be found. In order to meet the situation, students can avoid the accusation by showing the fact that they cite the property. This type of problem is difficult to determine whether it can be plagiarism or not because the person who violate “secondary citation” rule should not always be punished: the reason why the pathway to the original can not be found can be the situation that the author just forgot to attribute to the original source. When I was about to write the lab report in Japan, I often use the way. I searched what I need to know from the textbook or some sources which contain what they call “common knowledge” , then I trace the original recourse from the reference lists on the textbooks.The act was not regarded as plagiarism in Japan at all, however it can be punished in US.

Next, question 5 provides the case that students forget in which article an opinion derived from a set of data. Students are expected to give up citing it directly then search the other thesis discussing a similar topic and find the answer from the article. Though it is obviously illegal to cite the meaning to the data without citation, it is difficult for me to understand why we need to give up citing that only because of forgetting where the interpretation comes. If you remember the data belongs to some article, it should be allowed to cite it with showing such as “this interpretation to the data was cited, and it is not my idea.”