I've run across a whole lot of terrible research papers. But I think I got the crown of creation this time round. The paper used some really terrible sources to begin with, but what made it particularly bad was how those terrible sources were used. The writer said things like "Gulliver believes that Lilliputian politics are silly (Smith 202)." The initial problem is that if in fact Gulliver thinks that, then the writer ought to quote something from Gulliver's Travels as evidence, not some secondary source. But ever worse, when I go to Smith 202 to see what she says, it turns out that there's not a single solitary reference to the idea on 202--or in the rest of the article, for that matter. The whole paper does the same thing. Over and over again a statement is made and referred to a source that has absolutely nothing to do with what the writer has asserted. It would be funny except that it's more pathetic than funny.
Edited by yoyo52 (05/16/1409:04 PM)
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.