Love, Medicine and Miracles (p. 69). New York: Harper and Row.)
Words like are generic and do not need to be changed.
Words like and are generic and do not need to be changed.
Example 5: Unacceptable Paraphrase
Original | Unacceptable Paraphrase #1 | Unacceptable Paraphrase #2 |
---|---|---|
We do not yet understand all the ways in which brain chemicals are related to emotions and thoughts, but the salient point is that our state of mind has an immediate and direct effect on our state of body.
(Source: Siegel, B. (1986). | Siegel (1986) writes that still know brain chemistry is important mental state on our physical state.
. | According to Siegel (1986), our mind affects our body quickly and directly, although every aspect of
. |
What’s the difference between paraphrasing, rephrasing, and rewording.
The act of putting someone else’s ideas or words into your own words is called paraphrasing, rephrasing, or rewording. Even though they are often used interchangeably, the terms can mean slightly different things:
Paraphrasing is restating someone else’s ideas or words in your own words while retaining their meaning. Paraphrasing changes sentence structure, word choice, and sentence length to convey the same meaning.
Rephrasing may involve more substantial changes to the original text, including changing the order of sentences or the overall structure of the text.
Rewording is changing individual words in a text without changing its meaning or structure, often using synonyms.
It can. One of the two methods of paraphrasing is called “Fluency.” This will improve the language and fix grammatical errors in the text you’re paraphrasing.
Paraphrasing and using a paraphrasing tool aren’t cheating. It’s a great tool for saving time and coming up with new ways to express yourself in writing. However, always be sure to credit your sources. Avoid plagiarism.
If you don’t properly cite text paraphrased from another source, you’re plagiarizing. If you use someone else’s text and paraphrase it, you need to credit the original source. You can do that by using citations. There are different styles, like APA, MLA, Harvard, and Chicago. Find more information about citing sources here.
The Paraphrasing Tool on our page is powered by the QuillBot service, which uses advanced language processing technology.
Both Scribbr and QuillBot are Learneo, Inc. services, ensuring that your inputs are processed in accordance with Learneo’s Privacy Policy.
For more, please read the QuillBot section of the Learneo Privacy Policy . Your use of our Paraphraser is subject to QuilBot Terms .
Paraphrasing without crediting the original author is a form of plagiarism , because you’re presenting someone else’s ideas as if they were your own.
However, paraphrasing is not plagiarism if you correctly cite the source . This means including an in-text citation and a full reference, formatted according to your required citation style .
As well as citing, make sure that any paraphrased text is completely rewritten in your own words.
Plagiarism means using someone else’s words or ideas and passing them off as your own. Paraphrasing means putting someone else’s ideas in your own words.
So when does paraphrasing count as plagiarism?
Try our services
Want to contact us directly? No problem. We are always here for you.
Our team helps students graduate by offering:
Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:
Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .
The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.
The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.
You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .
Rephrase sentences and paragraphs, preserving the original meaning while avoiding direct copying. Free tool, no login required!
How to use vidyo.ai’s best paraphrasing tool, 1. paste content.
Begin by sharing the text you want to paraphrase. Simply copy and paste the content into the provided input box on vidyo.ai’s paraphrasing tool. This can include any form of text, such as articles, essays, reports, or even social media posts. Providing the original copy helps the tool understand the context and content that needs rephrasing.
Select the desired tone for your paraphrased content. vidyo.ai’s paraphrasing tool offers various tone options, such as professional, casual, formal, or friendly. Choosing the appropriate tone ensures that the rephrased text aligns with your intended audience and purpose. This customization helps maintain the voice and style that best suits your needs.
Once you’ve shared your copy and selected the tone, click the 'Paraphrase' button. vidyo.ai’s advanced AI algorithms will quickly process your text, generating a paraphrased version that retains the original meaning while presenting it in a new way. This free tool provides you with a paraphrased version of your text, ensuring it is unique, clear, and well-structured.
1. understand the source material.
To create undetectable paraphrasing, it's crucial to thoroughly understand the original content. Comprehend the main ideas, key points, and the overall message. This deep understanding allows you to rephrase the text accurately without altering the intended meaning, ensuring that the paraphrased content is faithful to the original.
One effective way to paraphrase undetectably is by using synonyms and alternate phrasing. Replace words with their synonyms and restructure sentences to present the same idea differently. This approach helps maintain the original message while creating a new, unique version of the text that is less likely to be flagged for duplication.
Modifying the sentence structure is another technique for undetectable paraphrasing. You can transform active sentences into passive ones, split long sentences into shorter ones, or combine short sentences into more complex structures. These changes make the paraphrased text distinct from the original while preserving its meaning.
Ensuring that the paraphrased content maintains context and clarity is essential. Avoid altering the meaning or introducing ambiguity. Review the rephrased text to confirm it conveys the same information as the original in a clear and coherent manner. This helps in producing high-quality paraphrased content that reads naturally.
Leveraging advanced paraphrasing tools like vidyo.ai can significantly enhance the paraphrasing process. These tools use sophisticated algorithms to generate rephrased content that is both unique and contextually accurate. They help automate the process, providing multiple paraphrasing options that can be refined to achieve undetectable paraphrasing.
Maintain professional integrity.
Using vidyo.ai’s AI paraphrasing tool helps maintain academic and professional integrity by ensuring your content is original. Plagiarism can lead to serious consequences, including loss of credibility and legal issues. By leveraging AI to rephrase content, you can produce unique work that adheres to ethical standards, protecting your reputation and ensuring compliance with company guidelines.
vidyo.ai’s AI paraphrasing tool not only helps in avoiding plagiarism but also enhances the quality and uniqueness of your content. This tool restructures sentences, improves vocabulary, and refines the overall flow of the text. This results in more engaging and readable content, which can better capture and retain the audience’s attention, ultimately improving the effectiveness of your communication.
Manually paraphrasing content can be a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. vidyo.ai’s AI paraphrasing tool automates this task, quickly generating multiple rephrased versions of your text. This efficiency allows you to focus on other important aspects of your work, such as research, analysis, or creative tasks, thereby increasing your overall productivity and ensuring timely delivery of high-quality content.
Frequently asked questions.
vidyo.ai’s Free Paraphrasing Tool stands out as one of the best paraphrasing tools available online. This tool allows you to rephrase sentences and paragraphs while preserving the original meaning, all without any word limit or login requirement. Simply paste your content, select the desired tone—such as professional, casual, formal, or friendly—and click the 'Paraphrase' button. The advanced AI algorithms will quickly generate a paraphrased version that is unique, clear, and well-structured. This combination of ease of use, versatility, and high-quality output makes vidyo.ai’s tool an excellent choice for anyone needing reliable paraphrasing
The most effective paraphrase is one that retains the original meaning while presenting the content in a new and unique way. vidyo.ai’s paraphrasing tool achieves this by understanding the context of the input text and using advanced algorithms to rephrase it accurately. It ensures that the paraphrased version is clear, coherent, and free from direct copying, which is crucial for maintaining originality. By selecting the appropriate tone and leveraging the AI's capabilities, you can produce a paraphrase that is not only effective but also tailored to your audience's preferences and expectations.
Author david daley on the far right's long-term "antidemocratic" strategy, and how we just might beat it, by andrew o'hehir.
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have turned the 2024 presidential campaign upside down and galvanized the Democratic Party's base voters, who had become almost resigned to a second term for Donald Trump. Harris now appears to be leading in the polls heading into next week's Democratic National Convention, while Trump — who had orchestrated an entire campaign around attacking the aging President Biden — is visibly flailing and appears determined to sabotage his chances with every public appearance.
But David Daley is here to tell those of you already catering your election-night parties: Don't celebrate quite yet. Daley, the former editor-in-chief of Salon and author of the 2016 bestseller " Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count " has returned with another chilling account of long-term right-wing dirty tricks, this time — as he told me in our recent Salon Talks conversation — with a title we can actually print. If the title of Daley's new book, " Antidemocratic: Inside the Far Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections ," suggests that it makes large claims, it definitely does. But it's not a tale of a secret, sinister conspiracy, and the chaotic events of Jan. 6, 2021, are only mentioned in passing.
Donald Trump was not the architect of the long-term antidemocratic strategy Daley outlines in this book, and was probably barely aware of it before he became its accidental beneficiary. The precarious and damaged condition of U.S. democracy — corrupted from top to bottom by corporate money, large-scale gerrymandering, aggressive voter suppression and the far-right conquest of the federal courts — did not happen by accident or result from a series of ad hoc political decisions. As Daley writes, it's "the product of a deliberate, long-term and extraordinarily patient strategy, some of it behind closed doors though much of it in plain sight."
Most of the major landmarks of this history are visible; engaged liberals and progressives largely understand the pernicious effects of the Supreme Court's decisions in the Citizens United and Shelby County cases, which opened the doors, respectively, to unlimited tides of dark money (now defined as free speech) and increasingly imaginative, if nominally colorblind, forms of racial disenfranchisement or vote suppression. But those court cases didn't emerge from nowhere, and it wasn't simply bad luck that they came before a court with an entrenched majority of Republican-appointed, Federalist Society-endorsed justices.
"Antidemocratic" is less the story of the damaging consequences of those decisions (among others) than the story of how and why they happened — and that story has never been told this thoroughly in a single volume. To boil the narrative down to its essentials, Daley demonstrates that leading conservatives of the 1970s, alienated and scandalized by the increasingly liberal tenure of political and legal reasoning in America, eventually realized they had to build an entire alternative system.
Arguing for their cherished culture-war positions on racial, sexual and religious issues piece by piece, before liberal judges or Democratic state legislatures, led only to defeat. What a few impressively farsighted right-wing thinkers conceived and then created — and it took liberals far too long to notice this — was a new intellectual and political apparatus that would produce well-trained, highly capable lawyers and judges devoted to reframing constitutional law around "originalism" and (as they saw it) redeeming the promise of a white-dominated, overtly Christian nation from the dangerous moral drift of cultural relativism and increasing diversity.
Founding fathers of that movement, like future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell and disgruntled ex-liberal lawyer Michael Horowitz, didn't have the word "woke" to rail against. But they were anti-woke before it was cool. Along with many of their ideological followers and fellow travelers, they created our current moment of American crisis, when getting the most votes on Election Day is only part of the story and the pathways to overturning or denying the people's verdict are legion. My former boss joined me recently to talk about some of the hair-raising possibilities raised by his new book.
This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.
“Antidemocratic” is perfectly timed for this contentious election. I have a decent sense of where you fall on the ideological spectrum, and I would assume you agree with the premise that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have changed the dynamics of this election. But have they changed it enough to address the issues you talk about in this book?
I think that is the $100,000 question as we head into this election season. This is going to be a very tight and very close election. And as we know, the Electoral College is really what matters. In 2020, we're talking about essentially 45,000 votes in three very competitive states that made the difference. Even though Joe Biden won the popular vote by 7 million, it was those 45,000 votes that made the difference. And the kinds of litigation that we saw after 2020 was a clown show. It was Rudy Giuliani in front of Four Seasons Landscaping . It was Cleta Mitchell and a bit of a pile up.
That's not going to be the case this time. I think they're better prepared. I think there's better lawyers working on this. Lara Trump at the RNC has already said that there's about 75 to 90 cases that the RNC is involved in, either as a litigant or filing amicus briefs in about 24 states.
These involve some of the big white-shoe conservative law firms, Consovoy McCarthy and others in D.C. Rudy Giuliani is not involved. So what I worry about is another replay of Bush v. Gore in 2000. If the margin is anywhere near as close as it was in 2000, where we're talking about maybe 550 votes in one state, we are going to see a six-week period, I would imagine, no matter what, between Election Day and the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December, that is going to be like a second election period.
Except that 180 million of us will vote on Election Day. If this winds up before the Supreme Court the same way Bush v. Gore does — and there's a million different scenarios you could conjure up that get it there — you will have nine people making that decision. Six of whom have essentially been appointed or trained or are in the pocket of Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, and three of whom worked on Bush v. Gore as lawyers.
That's remarkable. Who are those three?
Those are John Roberts , Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett , who essentially proved their conservative bona fides in that moment, and were fast-tracked to be trusted by the conservative legal movement for these incredibly important spots on the court. Bush v. Gore, in many ways, was the proof of concept for controlling the court and controlling American elections.
In the book you repeatedly explain that the “50-year plot" you write about is not a conspiracy theory. It's understandable that people are focused on the proximate threat of Donald Trump, but the Trump administration, as you just said, was a clown show. When you have Rudy Giuliani or Cleta Mitchell or Sidney Powell involved, it's all going to go south. Those people were not competent, not well-informed, not good with the law. But that's changed, right? Now there are many people who are competent, well-informed, intelligent and good with the law who have been involved for decades in building for a moment like this.
I think that's exactly right. A lot of people believe that this current antidemocratic moment began when Donald Trump descended the gilded escalator at Trump Tower. Actually, you can trace the roots of this moment back decades earlier than that. The folks who have been plotting this truly antidemocratic moment of entrenched minority rule in so much of our politics have been planning for this for a long time. You can track it back many decades, as I try to do in this book, and there's a really good reason for it. They were and are still, to this day, trying to achieve political policy goals that majorities of Americans disagree with, and the only way to pull that off was by capturing the courts. They learned this time and time again over this entire period, which inspired them to go further into this idea. You don't need 218 members of the House and 51 members of the Senate or the White House, if you can put five people who you know and trust in lifelong unelected unaccountable positions on the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Bush v. Gore, in many ways, was the proof of concept for controlling the court and controlling American elections."
Even better if you have six.
There are two headline-making legal cases at the center of your book, one of them being the Citizens United case that basically opened the door to unlimited corporate dark money in the political process, and the other being Shelby County v. Holder , which removed the teeth of the Voting Rights Act . But those two court decisions, as famous as they were, weren't just the result of conservative principles coming to the fore or a new interpretation of the Constitution or some sort of artful judicial compromise. Your argument is that this was literally the culmination of decades of strategy.
Yes. What the conservative legal movement has built in many ways is a hermetically sealed circle. When they bring these cases, they have the Federalist Society doing the research and creating the sort of legal hothouse theories that make up the amicus briefs that they also fund.
They fund the litigators and the expensive law firms. They fund the astroturfed nonprofits that go out and find the litigants that bring these cases. And they are serving as essentially the one-stop shopping transmission belt for installing the judges who will hear these cases.
And then the same funders oftentimes are behind things like ALEC , the American Legislative Exchange Council, that then take the cases, once they're allowed to gerrymander or pass voter ID bills, and bring them back down to the state legislatures and enact them in all these places. So what you begin to see is that the fix is in at just about every single level. And that's certainly the case in Citizens United and also in Shelby County.
You make a persuasive case that the right built a movement over a period of decades to achieve these results. From their point of view, who were the heroes or leaders or key figures in that movement?
I think Salon readers will probably recognize the name of Lewis Powell.
Former Supreme Court justice, although this was before that.
Well, the amazing thing about Lewis Powell on the Supreme Court is that Powell is sort of a classic Southern lawyer, a genteel racist. And he is seen as "the courtly gentleman of the Marble Palace," as Time Magazine described him.
Folks in Richmond, Virginia, where his biographer says he never met a Black man as an equal, might beg to differ. Powell was chair of the school committee in Richmond during Brown v. Board , which he believed to be wrongly decided. He couldn't imagine why the court would reach that decision. He does not engage in the sort of maximal resistance that other places did.
Right, he didn't stand in the schoolhouse door. He would never have used blatantly racist language, in the most obvious sense. He had no affiliation with the Klan. That's what we're talking about, right?
He was not Bull Connor , but he simply didn't do anything to change. Five years after Brown, when Powell steps down as school board chair, you can count the number of Black students in white schools on one hand in Richmond, Virginia. All of which is just a buildup to say this is not a nice man. In the 1960s, he calls Martin Luther King Jr. a totalitarian. He talks about the civil rights movement in horrific ways, and he writes a memo for the Chamber of Commerce in the early 1970s that effectively says, "We on the right are besieged." I mean, the idea of this kind of white-right grievance is not new to us.
It wasn't invented in 2016.
Precisely. Powell writes a memo for the Chamber of Commerce that says, "We are going to lose to the consumer movement and the environmental movement and the radicals in the media and on campuses if the right does not get involved in a big way. And the best opportunity for us would be to take advantage of our chances in the courts and to try and take over the courts." Well, he writes this memo and three months later, Richard Nixon appoints him to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is quite a career ladder.
"What had to be done was that Republicans had to win hearts and minds in law schools. They had to build from the ground up, not the top down."
As a Supreme Court justice, his rulings in some of the key campaign finance cases of the 1970s helped pave the way for Citizens United. There's also a big voting rights case that very much influences a young John Roberts. So Powell's memo, I think there's some on the left who probably overstate its influence and I try not to do that here, but it's undeniable that it inspired the Koch brothers . The Koch brothers wrote about it and gave speeches about it in the early 1970s. It inspired the big conservative founders on the right, the folks at the foundations like Scaife, Olin and Coors, to do things like build the Heritage Foundation . They built an entire network of conservative public interest law firms that they tried to use in the same way that the left was using law firms to fight DDT and support Ralph Nader's consumer movement and the like. But much of what the right built at first didn't really work or prove super effective.
It took a second really smart conservative, a man named Michael Horowitz, a former liberal from New York City, who I don't think people really understand or know about. Horowitz comes in about almost a decade later and does a memo for the Scaife Foundation. That's Richard Mellon Scaife, the big conservative funder, probably gave a billion dollars to conservative causes over the course of his lifetime.
What Horowitz argues is that the structure and the framework that Powell has described doesn't make a lot of sense anymore, because Republicans don't have the bright young lawyers in order to staff it. They have mediocre legal minds, he thought. What had to be done was Republicans had to win hearts and minds in law schools. They had to build this from the ground up, not as Powell wanted to from the top down.
I have to say, I find this guy's vision impressive.
It's brilliant.
He understood that what they lacked was the intellectual bench, and the actual training, background and educational framework. That seems like such a central aspect of the whole story.
It's an absolutely huge part. Because he introduces a handful of young conservative law students in the early 1980s to the conservative funders, and they would together launch and fund something called the Federalist Society, which is probably the biggest ROI that any conservative investment has ever built.
Horowitz, who was really an unknown lawyer in New York prior to writing this report, ends up as chief of staff at Reagan's Office of Management and Budget, a really big job at the center of the Reagan administration where he brings in young Republicans and begins putting good, proper conservatives on the career track. The same thing happens at the Department of Justice where all of these young Federalist Society folks come in, along with a young John Roberts, who was not a member of the Federalist Society at the time but clerked with [Chief Justice] William Rehnquist, who essentially had an early version of the Federalist Society in his chambers, and you begin to see how the transmission belt works and functions.
I was interested in Horowitz's critique of the left-liberal legal establishment of the time. He describes them as something of an ideological insider's group that was in this self-congratulatory loop, of pushing policies and legal agendas and court decisions. Obviously he thought the right should emulate that, and they did. But I also wonder to what extent he was correct: Did the arrogance of the left-liberal establishment of that time undermine itself?
It's a great question. Horowitz goes to a conference at Yale that Charles Halperin, who was one of the geniuses of the liberal public interest law movement of the '60s and '70s, runs. Horowitz is horrified by what he sees, but he's also amazed by it because it's right out in the open. It's sort of everything he imagined. It's the folks who work at the government agencies under Jimmy Carter . It's the public interest law firms. It's the law professors. They're all just hanging out together. And he's saying, "Well, they're all friends. And they all had built an iron triangle that helped further all of their policy goals."
"Without serious structural fixes to American politics, there's going to be this entrenched minority rule, and it's only going to get worse if we don't do anything about it."
I think he might have imagined that this was the case, and then he got there and saw it and said, "This is what we need to do." He's like, "You can't have a regional system of public interest law firms out in the mountain states or the Pacific Northwest or wherever. You need to be in Washington. You need to be with the people who are making these decisions. You've got to be in the room with them." He thought that was the model that conservatives needed to build, rather than the one that Powell had suggested. And he was right.
This is a leading question, but are you frustrated to see the Democrats playing emergency politics once again in this election? They are always concerned with the immediate crisis — "How do we defeat this dangerous person?" — rather than addressing the underlying causes that made Trump possible and got us here. As long as we keep repeating that fire-alarm pattern, is anything fundamental going to change?
No. As long as we keep repeating that pattern, every election is going to be the most important election of all time and democracy will always be on the ballot. We will always have to rush $15 to Nancy Pelosi because she'll be alive forever through our ActBlue accounts. No, nothing will change. You begin to almost wonder if they like it that way.
Biden recently made various reform proposals about the Supreme Court, which are not going to go anywhere in the near term. But in the context of all the crazy and obvious headline news, I wonder if you think it was an important moment for the actual president of the United States to say those things.
Amen. Because we need to start this conversation. It needs to be mainstreamed and it needs to be a part of Democratic politics and platforms.
Listen, a lot of us said this back in 2020. A lot of us have been saying things like this for a long time. Without serious structural fixes to American politics, there's going to be this entrenched minority rule for a period of time, and it's only going to get worse over time if we don't do anything about it. So Joe Biden commissioned a blue ribbon panel, and he stuffed the result in a drawer back when Democrats had a trifecta in Washington and might have been able to do something about this. It would have required blowing up the filibuster, it would have required Manchin and Sinema, but when they had the numbers, the report was stuffed in a drawer. And what happened? Well, the Supreme Court blew up Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision.
They continued tearing the Voting Rights Act in half, and half again and half again. They gave Trump immunity for crimes that he committed in office and essentially turned him into a king and placed him above the law after slow-walking that case for so long that it pushed it off until after the 2024 election.
There's a piece of me that says, I'm glad we've started this conversation, but it's a little too late for the moment that we're in. But it's an important conversation to start, because what we have is a runaway hijacked U.S. Supreme Court loaded with a conservative supermajority appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and confirmed by a U.S. Senate that has not actually represented a majority of Americans during those years. They are unelected, given lifetime powers and appointments. They are totally unaccountable to Americans. They have no ethics standards. They deliberate in private.
Abraham Lincoln , in his first inaugural, said that if we give unfettered power over public policy decisions that affect all the people to the U.S. Supreme Court — I'm paraphrasing slightly, but I'm not paraphrasing this: "The people will cease to be their own rulers." I would suggest that that is the moment that we are in. That in many ways, the people have ceased to be their own rulers.
So what Biden is talking about is a solid start. Term limits seem like a very wise idea. Americans back them, right? Anytime you start talking about a court reform, people get afraid. There's a Fox News poll that shows 78% of Americans back term limits for the U.S. Supreme Court. This is extraordinarily popular.
I'm sure they'd find a way to game the system but, regardless, it's a pretty good start, and also an actual code of ethics with teeth. If we're going to have this unaccountable lifetime panel making these decisions for us, I would like to know who is funding their lavish luxury vacations. I would like to know who's buying their mother's house for them. I'd like to know who's paying their friend's tuition to fancy private schools, and I'd like to know what kind of business these people have before the U.S. Supreme Court. The idea that we can't have hearings into this — I mean, this court has been corrupted.
"John Roberts is not your friend. John Roberts is not a moderate. John Roberts is not a centrist. John Roberts is the most important conservative politician of the last 25 years."
You do your utmost in this book to demolish the reputation of Chief Justice John Roberts as this institutionalist, middle-road, compromise-seeking justice. But you and I know we will read a column in the Washington Post or the New York Times in the next five days that recycles those clichés, arguing that Roberts is a moderating influence on the hotheads like Alito and Thomas. Why does that keep happening?
I have no idea. This idea that John Roberts will save us, when John Roberts has shown again and again that not only is he not going to save us, he's not your friend, he's not on your side. Listen, John Roberts is the most successful Republican politician of the last 25 years. He is hardly an institutionalist centrist calling balls and strikes. He's calling balls and strikes like Leslie Nielsen did in “The Naked Gun.” The pitch is halfway down the plate and he's called a ball or a strike, based on which side wins.
Here's what John Roberts has delivered for conservatives and Republicans over the course of the last 20 years: Citizens United and the unlimited ability of billionaires to flood dark money into our politics; the continued destruction of the Voting Rights Act, which has resounded to the benefit of the Republican Party nationally; in state after state, he has blessed their partisan gerrymanders; he has overseen the end of Roe v. Wade; he has overseen the end of the regulatory state, he has overseen the birth of the major questions doctrine. Look at what has happened on gun control.
And what is the truth about all of these cases? None of them, none of these results, could have been won by conservatives or Republicans through the political process. John Roberts delivered all these things for them. John Roberts is not a moderate. John Roberts is not a centrist. John Roberts is the most important conservative politician of the last 25 years.
"Salon Talks" with journalists
Andrew O'Hehir is executive editor of Salon.
Related articles.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Paraphrasing means putting someone else's ideas into your own words. Paraphrasing a source involves changing the wording while preserving the original meaning. Paraphrasing is an alternative to quoting (copying someone's exact words and putting them in quotation marks ). In academic writing, it's usually better to integrate sources by ...
Paraphrase: "The Earth's plants and animals are in danger because of changing weather patterns. Many types of living things might disappear as the places they live are destroyed and their surroundings change." This paraphrase keeps the main idea but uses different words and sentence structure. It shows what is an example of effective paraphrasing.
Clear definition and great examples of Paraphrase. This article will show you the importance of Paraphrase and how to use it. A paraphrase is a restatement or rewording of a paragraph or text, in order to borrow, clarify, or expand on information without plagiarizing.
Paraphrasing is the act of restating information or text using your own words while maintaining the original meaning. There are generally four types of paraphrasing; Synonymic Paraphrasing: In this type, you replace certain words or phrases with their synonyms to convey the same idea. This method helps to maintain the context while presenting ...
Effective - Sentence structure and phrasing in the paraphrase reflect a writing style and voice that is unique from the author's style; The author's main ideas expressed in the original ...
Paraphrasing rules and proper paraphrasing citations. Change every word you can and adjust the sentence structure to paraphrase without plagiarizing. Some passages require you to use a few of the same words as the original. For example, if you're paraphrasing a passage that uses the word photosynthesis, there's really no other synonym to use.
A paraphrase re-states information and ideas from a source using your own wording and sentence structure. Paraphrasing is similar to summarizing; however, summaries condense the original down to the essential or main ideas, while paraphrases simply re-state the original portion of text. A paraphrase is usually about the same length as the ...
Paraphrasing is when you restate the information from a source using your own words while maintaining the original meaning. It involves expressing the ideas in a different way, often to clarify or simplify the content, without directly quoting the source. When you paraphrase, you are not only borrowing, clarifying, or expanding on the ...
Paraphrasing Structure As noted on the previous page, when you paraphrase, you have to do more than change the words from the original passage. You have to also change the sentence structure. Sometimes, students will struggle with paraphrasing because they have an urge to simply use the same basic sentence or sentences and replace the original words with synonyms. This is not a method that ...
A paraphrase or rephrase ( / ˈpærəˌfreɪz /) is the rendering of the same text in different words without losing the meaning of the text itself. [ 1] More often than not, a paraphrased text can convey its meaning better than the original words.
Paraphrasing - How to Paraphrase with Clarity & Concision What Is a Paraphrase? Paraphrase refers to the act of rephrasing a specific part of someone's spoken or written words, especially in a way that might be shorter or simpler, while ensuring the original meaning remains intact. Paraphrase involves more than just changing individual words with synonyms, altering sentence structure, or ...
Paraphrasing involves expressing someone else's ideas or thoughts in your own words while maintaining the original meaning. Paraphrasing tools can help you quickly reword text by replacing certain words with synonyms or restructuring sentences. They can also make your text more concise, clear, and suitable for a specific audience.
Paraphrasing makes a lengthy passage concise, but it can be tricky to make it original. Learn the correct way to paraphrase with these paraphrasing examples.
A paraphrase, or an indirect quotation, is a rewording of an author's text, explanation, argument, or narrative. When cited correctly, paraphrasing is a legitimate way to borrow from a source to restate its essential ideas and information. As opposed to summarizing (briefly overviewing the main points of a passage) or directly quoting ...
What are the differences between Quoting, Paraphrasing & Summarising ? Quoting means using someone else's exact words and putting them in quotation marks.. Paraphrasing means expressing someone else's ideas in your own voice, while keeping the same essential meaning. Summarising means taking a long passage of text from someone else and condensing the main ideas in your own words.
Definition of Paraphrase. Paraphrasing is the process in which one takes a pre-existing piece of content, whether written or verbal, and restates it using distinct phrases, words, and structure, while ensuring the original meaning stays intact. It is a method of creatively reproducing a text, thought, or concept in a reformed way, yet ...
This comprehensive guide on paraphrasing will teach you how to rephrase information effectively, avoid plagiarism, and improve your writing skills.
Techniques for Paraphrasing. When you write a paraphrase, you restate other's ideas in your own words. That is, you write the meaning of the author's ideas. You use some of the author's key terms, but you use many of your own words and sentence structures. You include in-text citation, including the author's last name and (for APA style ...
Avoiding Plagiarism - Paraphrasing. In writing papers, you will paraphrase more than you will quote. For a report or research paper, you may need to gather background information that is important to the paper but not worthy of direct quotation. Indeed, in technical writing direct quotation is rarely used.
Plagiarism of Structure is paraphrasing someone else's words by changing sentence structure or word choice, or paraphrasing while maintaining the original sentence structure without citation.
Paraphrasing changes sentence structure, word choice, and sentence length to convey the same meaning. Rephrasing may involve more substantial changes to the original text, including changing the order of sentences or the overall structure of the text. Rewording is changing individual words in a text without changing its meaning or structure ...
Abstract. Paraphrases are sentences or phrases that convey the same meaning using different wording. Although the logical definition of paraphrases requires strict semantic equivalence, linguistics accepts a broader, approximate, equivalence—thereby allowing far more examples of "quasi-paraphrase." But approximate equivalence is hard to define. Thus, the phenomenon of paraphrases, as ...
QuillBot's AI-powered paraphrasing tool helps students and professionals rewrite, edit, and change the tone of their text to improve clarity and comprehension.
The most effective paraphrase is one that retains the original meaning while presenting the content in a new and unique way. vidyo.ai's paraphrasing tool achieves this by understanding the context of the input text and using advanced algorithms to rephrase it accurately.
Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural, said that if we give unfettered power over public policy decisions that affect all the people to the U.S. Supreme Court — I'm paraphrasing slightly, but ...