WRITING @ CSU

SOURCE:http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/researchsources/in
cludingsources/paraphrasing/without.cfm
Overview: Including Outside Sources
Once you have evaluated your source materials and selected the ones you are going
to use, you must decide on how best to include them in your work: quoting directly,
paraphrasing passages or, simply summarizing the main points.
One, two or all three can be used in a document. The following sections provide
instructions, examples and discussion on a range of issues related to this topic.

Quoting Source Material

Paraphrasing Source Material
Summarizing Source Material

Quoting Source Material

There are many reasons for quoting source material, a primary one being that
captured in the expression: "getting it straight from the horses mouth."
Quoting authoritative voices in your field lends credence to the arguments you
present. By association, your words and those you quote are drawn closer together,
creating powerful perceptions for you readers regarding the veracity and validity of
your work.
It's especially important in academic writing that original sources be quoted
accurately and correctly and that they be cited immediately following their
appearance in the text. To learn more about quoting your source material, please
explore the following links.

Quoting Directly
Quoting Previously Quoted Material
Using a Quotation within a Quotation
Using Block Quotations
To Quote or Not to Quote
Editing Quotations
Blending Quoted Material
Grammar and Spelling Issues
Punctuating Quotations

Quoting Directly
Quoting Directly means taking a specific statement or passage made directly by an
author and including it, word for word, in your work. The words you quote are
original to the author you are quoting and are not taken from any other source.

Example of Quoting Directly

Original Passage:
This first juxtaposition sets up a tension between black reality and the white
ideal. The question that arises is how this disparity came about. Readers-particularly white readers as we most closely match that ideal--must ask themselves:
"Who or what is, after all, responsible for the soil that is bad for certain kinds of
flowers, for seeds it will not nurture, for fruit it will not bear?" (Napieralski 61)
--from Brenda Edmands, "The Gaze That Condemns: White Readers, Othering And
Division in Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye" (Unpublished Essay)
Edmonds material quoted directly in the following passage:
It is clear that Toni Morrison is using the excerpt from the classic children's novels,
Dick and Jane, for the purpose of establishing a conflict between "the norm"-in this
case the white culture-and "the other"-black culture. By following the Dick and Jane
excerpt so closely with the short prologue describing Pecola's pregnancy by her
father and her subsequent shunning by the townspeople, Morrison "sets up a
tension between black reality and the white ideal" (Edmands).

Quoting Previously Quoted Material

Quoting previously quoted material means taking a specific statement or passage
that the author of your source material has already taken (directly quoted) from
another source, and inserting it into your work.
The rules remain the same as when quoting directly; you may not rephrase the
statement or passage, but copy it exactly as it was written, placing the quotation
marks in exactly the same manner. You must document previously quoted material
differently, however, than other types of quotations.

Example of Quoting Previously Quoted Material

The Original Source Material says:
The question that arises is how this disparity came about. Readers--particularly white
readers as we most closely match that ideal--must ask themselves: "Who or what
is, after all, responsible for the soil that is bad for certain kinds of flowers,
for seeds it will not nurture, for fruit it will not bear?" (Napieralski 61)

--from Brenda Edmands, "The Gaze That Condemns: White Readers, Othering And
Division in Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye" (Unpublished Essay)
Napieralski's statement, previously quoted by Edmonds, quoted in the
following passage:
In Morrison's novel, The Bluest Eye, the overriding question is about responsibility
according to Professor Edmund A. Napieralski: "Who or what is, after all,
responsible for the soil that is bad for certain kinds of flowers, for seeds it
will not nurture, for fruit it will not bear?" (qtd. in Edmands)
Note how the citation here tells the reader that this quotation was previously quoted
in the source by Edmands and how it appears outside of the sentence in which the
quote appears.

Using a Quotation within a Quotation

Using a quotation within a quotation means taking a passage from your source
material that is a combination of the author's own words and a passage that he or
she has quoted from yet another source, and inserting that into your own work.
While you document these types of quotations in the same manner as direct
quotations, you use slightly different punctuation to indicate where the author's own
words leave off, and the quoted passage begins.

Example of Using a Quotation within a Quotation

Original Passage:
This first juxtaposition sets up a tension between black reality and the white ideal.
The question that arises is how this disparity came about. Readers-particularly
white readers as we most closely match that ideal-must ask themselves:
"Who or what is, after all, responsible for the soil that is bad for certain
kinds of flowers, for seeds it will not nurture, for fruit it will not bear?"
(Napieralski 61)
--from Brenda Edmands, "The Gaze That Condemns: White Readers, Othering And
Division in Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye" (Unpublished Essay)
Edmands' introductory material, including the previously quoted Napieralski
statement, quoted in the following passage:
Many scholars feel there is a need for white readers to wrestle with questions of race
in Morrison's The Bluest Eye in a fashion different from readers of other races.
Brenda Edmands, a lecturer in the English Department at Colorado State University,
argues that white readers must consider questions of racial disparity in the novel
more closely. According to Ms. Edmands: "Readers-particularly white readers as
we most closely match that ideal-must ask themselves: 'Who or what is,
after all, responsible for the soil that is bad for certain kinds of flowers, for

seeds it will not nurture, for fruit it will not bear?' (Napieralski 61)" ("The
Gaze That Condemns").
Note how the material quoted from Napieralski is enclosed by single quotation marks
while the entire passage taken from the Edmands essay, including the Napieralski
quote, is enclosed in double quotation marks. As with a direct quotation, the relevant
documentation is cited within the sentence in which it appears.

Blending Quoted Material

One of the goals of effective writing is creating a sense of unity, a sense that all parts
of the text are clearly related. To achieve this you must connect each part. A
quotation must blend into your text so that it reads as an integral part of the
sentence and paragraph in which it is included.
A quotation that lacks a clear relationship to its surrounding text makes a paragraph
sound choppy and unfocused. Your reader will find it more difficult to decide if the
quotation expands or clarifies the idea being presented, or if it is an example of a
situation or fact that supports the idea, or whether it presents an opposing view.
To avoid this, make sure to blend your quotations into the text of your document.
Use frames and transitions that clue your reader into the reason why it is being
included. The following guides explain and demonstrate this further.

Framing to Blend Quoted Material

Using Transitions to Blend Quoted Material

Framing to Blend Source Material

A frame is simply an introduction at the beginning of your quote and a follow-up
statement at the end. They are the bookends that keep the quote from sliding off the
shelf.
An Opening Frame is often called an "Author's Tag". It establishes the identity and
credibility of your source. It also ties the quotation to the focus of your document,
hinting at what you are going to reveal, explain or support.
Without a beginning frame, your reader may rightly question the authority and
trustworthiness of the source of the quotation.
A Closing Frame explains how the quotation is relevant to the point being made
and, in addition, shows that you are capable of expressing ideas in your own words.
This is important in the process of establishing your authority as a writer.
Without an end frame, different readers may take away different ideas from the
same piece of text: an unintended consequence.

Example of Framing a Direct Quote

Notice how the opening frame in the paragraph below introduces the quotation. First,
a general point is made regarding increased mountain lion encounters. Next,
Biologist Samuel Cronin, a credible expert, is introduced. The fact that Cronin
"agrees" tips the reader that the quotation is there to support the writer's view
presented in the opening frame.
Each year has seen an increase in encounters between humans, and their pets, and
mountain lions. This is the fault of humans encroaching on the animal's rightful
territory. Biologist Samuel Cronin agrees: "These kinds of attacks must be laid
squarely at the pedicured feet of yuppie mountain dwellers who build million-dollar
homes in the foothills, right smack in the middle of the mountain lion's usual hunting
ground, and then wonder why their poodle Fifi becomes lion chow, or why when they
go to put their garbage out, they find themselves staring into a lion's unblinking
golden gaze." It is our behavior that has created the danger. The lion did not come
down out of the mountains into our suburban backyards; we've moved the suburbs
into his.
The closing frame focuses the reader's attention on the fact that human behavior and
the issue of where million-dollar homes are built is the main point and that other
issues, such as keeping pets in a wild area and class-status of home owners, is not.
Notice how restating the idea in the Cronin quotation allows the writer's own voice to
emerge. A strong personal statement on the subject clarifies why the quotation was
included in the first place.

Using Transitions to Blend Quoted Material

Transitions are words or phrases that indicate the relationship between two
statements. They are the "bridges" that link two sentences or paragraphs together.
For instance, the words "furthermore", "also", and "additionally" are transitions
indicating that the statement to follow will link to or build upon the ideas expressed
in the previous. Notice how this paragraph begins with "for instance".
Transitional words and phrases like "for example" and "for instance" establish that
the following statement is going to illustrate the point made in the first. Words such
as "however" and "although", on the other hand, establish that the statement
following it is a contradiction to the preceding statement.
Using transitions before and after you insert outside source material clarifies for your
reader why it was included and how it relates to your focus.

Example of Using Transitions

Notice how the phrase "In addition" tips off the reader that the quotation is going to
build on the ideas in the preceding sentences. The transition indicates that the
quotation is an additional item in the focus of this paragraph: the benefits of cycling.
There are many health reasons to bike instead of drive. It's a cardiovascular
workout; it burns many more calories than driving; it's less stressful, so it keeps
your blood pressure down; and it strengthens your muscles. In addition, according to

cycling advocate Harold Burns, "[T]here are economic benefits to cycling. I save
money on gas, car insurance, parking fees, and maintenance costs on my car. While
there are occasional costs for maintenance on my bicycle, much of the work I can do
myself, and when I do have to take it to a bike shop, the hourly rate for labor is
considerably lower than what most auto mechanics receive" (154). Cycling, we can
see, is good for the well being of your body and your wallet.

Paraphrasing Source Material

Paraphrasing restates ideas and information found in source material. It requires that
you fully understand the contents of the passage enough to explain or reiterate them
in your own words while retaining the meaning intended by its original author. This
guide explains the paraphrasing process and provides both accurate and inaccurate
examples, as well as tips on how to avoid plagiarism.

Overview: Paraphrasing
Accurate Paraphrasing
How to Paraphrase without Plagiarizing

Overview: Paraphrasing
Simply quoting someone on a subject achieves little toward building your own
scholarly reputation. In many cases, the choice to paraphrase rather than quote
demonstrates your grasp of the subject matter. It also enhances your credibility as
both a critical reader and thinker.
Being able to paraphrase accurately demonstrates that you respect the contributions
made by others while showcasing your own skill as a writer. This is especially useful
when you want to point out specific details or information bearing directly on your
argument or, when you wish to reference an opposing idea.
As with summarizing and quoting, whenever you restate someone else's words,
thoughts or points of view you must document the source.

Accurate Paraphrasing
Accurate paraphrasing requires careful attention to the nuance and meaning of
words. The ones you choose must reflect the meaning found in the original source
without plagiarizing its author.
The key to this begins with your own comprehension. How well you understand the
contents of a passage will determine how accurately you restate it in your own
words. Using sentence structures and rhythm patterns that are uniquely your own
will distinguish your voice from the ones you paraphrase.
When you are through there should be no mistake regarding the speaker's identity.
The following example illustrates accurate, inaccurate as well as inappropriate
paraphrasing.

Example of Punctuating Accurate Paraphrasing

Original Passage:
The Lomonosov Ridge is 1,100 miles long, about the distance from San Francisco to
Denver, and rises about 10,000 feet from the floor of the Arctic Ocean. Geologists
think the ridge might have broken away from a continent about 55 million years ago
and remained near the North Pole while other landmasses drifted away. Moran and
other scientists chose the ridge for potential drilling during a 1991 cruise during
which they crossed the North Pole. The site was intriguing for the fact that no one
had ever drilled the seafloor for a core there because of sea ice that drifts around like
pieces of a massive jigsaw puzzle.
Source: Rozell, N. (2005). A fern grows in the Arctic Ocean. Alaska Science Forum
Article #1773. Retrieved December 15, 2005, from
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1773.html.
Accurate Paraphrase:
Climbing 10,000 feet above the floor of the Arctic Ocean, the Lomonosov Ridge
stretches 1,100 miles in length: roughly the distance between San Francisco and
Denver. Geologists believe that it may be what remains of a continent that broke
apart and moved away from the North Pole around 55 million years ago. Moran and
her colleagues, knowing that the shifting sea ice in the Arctic Ocean had prevented
others from having ever drilled there, selected the Lomonosov Ridge location as a
future core-sampling site on a 1991 excursion across the North Pole.
As you can see, when comparing the original passage with this paraphrase, the
writer's word choices and sentence structure are not the same, yet the information
has remained the same.
Inaccurate Paraphrase:
In 1991, Moran and her colleagues, convinced that the core samples retrieved would
reveal startling new geologic information, chose to drill the Arctic Ocean seafloor
near the 1,100 mile long Lomonosov Ridge, a left over relic of continents breaking up
and moving away from the North Pole some 55 million years ago.
In this example, the wording and sentence structure are significantly different;
however, the meaning of the original passage has been considerably distorted.
Inferences are drawn that are simply not accurate enough for a paraphrase.
Inappropriate Paraphrase:
The 1,100 miles long Lomonosov Ridge, about the same distance from San Francisco
to Denver, rises about 10,000 feet from the floor of the Arctic Ocean. Scientists think
the ridge may have broken away from another continent about 55 million years ago,
remaining near the North Pole while the rest of the landmass drifted away. Moran
and other scientists chose this ridge for drilling on a cruise in 1991 in which they
crossed the North Pole. They were intrigued by the fact that no one had ever drilled

the seafloor there for a core because of sea ice drifting around like massive jigsaw
puzzle pieces.
In this example, the wording and sentence structured corresponds too closely to the
original for it to be fairly called a paraphrase.

How to Paraphrase Without Plagiarizing

Plagiarism is a serious offense. It means that you have used someone else's words or
ideas without proper acknowledgement. This is easy to do unintentionally, especially
when paraphrasing. Once understood, it can be avoided.
One useful technique is to read the passage carefully several times to identify its
main points; then set it aside. Try rewriting the main points in your own words
without looking at the original. In other words, explain it to yourself.
When finished, set your draft aside and move on with the rest of your writing, or to
some other activity. Turning your attention to something else puts distance between
yourself and the original passage. It clears your head, so to speak.
When you return to it you will have a fresh perspective. Your recollection of the exact
words being paraphrased will have faded to some degree and it will be easier to
focus on your own language choices and sentence structure.
At this point, still not looking at the original, revise and polish your draft. You will
discover your own voice asserting itself in the writing process. After editing and
revising, compare your paraphrase with the original passage. Do your words
accurately convey the original contents? Are they sufficiently different to avoid a
charge of plagiarism?
You may find it useful to repeat the process several times. Revise your paraphrase, in
other words. Examine your results carefully and compare them with the original to
see that what you have written is original, gives credit and repeats the essential
information. Below is an example that walks you through the paraphrasing process.

Example of How to Paraphrase Without Plagiarizing

Original Passage:
Derived partially from the Greek prefix epi-, which means "on" or "in addition," the
epigenome is to the cell what an organism's sensory organs are to the individual.
Like an octopus's tentacles that, among other functions, gather information from the
environment so that the brain can tell the neurons, "Move your eighth arm here, "
the epigenome gathers information from the cell's environment and tells the genes,
"turn on" or "turn off." In science lingo, it governs "gene expression." Based on
emerging evidence, the epigenome appears to play a vital role in most, if not all,
cellular activity, from metabolism to fertilization.

Source: Pray, L. A. (2005). Soiled Genes: Can toxic exposures be inherited? Orion
Magazine. Retrieved December 15, 2005, from
http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/05-6om/Pray.html.
The original passage contains three relevant pieces of information that need
restating in order to create an accurate paraphrase. The highlights in paragraph A
below identify these pieces of information.
(A) Derived partially from "the Greek prefix epi-, which means "on" or in addition,"
the epigenome is to the cell what an organism's sensory organs are the individual.
Like an octopus's tentacles that, among other functions, gather information from the
environment so that the brain can tell the neurons, "Move your eighth arm here, "
the epigenome gathers information from the cell's environment and tells the genes,
"turn on" or "turn off." In science lingo, it governs "gene expression." Based on
emerging evidence, the epigenome appears to play a vital role in most, if not all,
cellular activity, from metabolism to fertilization.
Paragraph B below restates the highlighted information and cites the source. Notice
that it is roughly the same length as the original. This is as it should be; a summary
would need to be shorter. Consider Paragraph B a first draft. It's still a little wordy.
(B) Pray (2005) compares the epigenomes of a cell to the sensory organs of an
individual. She likens them to octopus tentacles gathering information from the
environment so that the brain has something to work with when deciding what
instructions to send the neurons governing specific tasks, like moving an arm for
instance. The epigenomes turn genes governing cellular activity on or off. The latest
research suggests that epigenomes (the Greek prefix epi-, meaning "on"), are an
integral and decisive part of practically every cellular activity, from metabolism to
fertilization, known to science.
Paragraph C is a final revision based on the draft above. Notice how the sentence
structure and word choices have evolved and yet the essential meaning of the
paragraph has not changed.
(C) Reporting on recent research, Pray (2005) observes that epigenomes (the prefix
epi-, meaning "on" in Greek) are much like the tentacles of an octopus. Attached to
individual cells, the epigenomes collect and provide external data to specific genes as
do the tentacles to the brain of an octopus. As the octopus's brain transmits a signal
via a neuron back to one of its tentacles telling it to move, the latest scientific
evidence indicates that epigenomes are the transmitters responsible for conveying
the information that flips the on/off switch on the genes governing practically every
kind of cellular-activity, from metabolism to fertilization, known to science.

Summarizing Source Material

A summary captures the general idea, main points or opinions found in your source
material without providing a lot of details. This guide explains and provides examples
of the four key concerns a writer needs to address when summarizing source
material.

Overview: Summarizing

Be
Be
Be
Be

Accurate
Objective
Focused
Concise

Overview: Summarizing Source Material

Summarizing a single source or a collection of related sources can provide your
reader with background or supporting information that helps them better understand
your chosen topic. It is also a useful method to point out material that either
supports or contradicts your argument while not distracting your reader with
irrelevant details.
As with quoting and paraphrasing, you must document the sources you summarize.
Unlike a paraphrase, which rewords a specific passage and often remains the same
length as the original, a summary reduces the material into a more concise
statement. To be effective you must choose your words carefully, being accurate,
objective, focused and concise.
Once you fully understand the intended meaning conveyed by the source material,
write your summary. Pay close attention to the precise meaning of the words you
choose and be especially careful not to introduce new ideas.
Developing critical reading skills will help you examine source materials with an eye
toward what to include in a summary.

Being Accurate
Being accurate requires that you fully understand the ideas and information
presented in your source material. Misunderstanding an author's tone of voice or
misinterpreting the information he or she has extrapolated from numerical data, for
instance, may cause you to inadvertently misrepresent their point of view, ideas,
opinions or position.

Example of Being Accurate

Here is an example of source material being inaccurately summarized and a brief
description of what the writer misunderstood. An accurate summary follows.

Original Source:
At slaughterhouses, on too-fast production lines, manure and the contents of
stomachs and intestines often splatter the meat. In winter, about 1 percent of cattle
from feedlots harbor E. coli; in summer, up to 50 percent can do so. "Even if you
assume that only one percent is infected, that means three or four cattle bearing the
microbe are eviscerated at a large slaughterhouse every hour, and a single animal
infected with E. coli can contaminate 32,000 pounds of ground beef," Schlosser
writes.

--Excerpted from Mindy Pennybacker, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much"
Inaccurate Summary:
In her Green Guide article, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much" Mindy Pennybacker
states that one percent of the cattle slaughtered in a fast-paced, meat-processing
plant on any given day carry the E. coli microbe and, as a result, 32,000 pounds of
ground beef are contaminated in the eviscerating process every hour.
On the surface this summary appears to be accurate, however, it is not. As in most
cases, inaccuracies are caused by omission or misinterpretation of facts.
In the first place, Pennybacker refers specifically to feedlot cattle in her article. This
fact is important and must be included so that your readers understand the author's
argument: pasture-fed and feedlot cattle carry widely differing risks in the slaughter
and meat-packing process.
Secondly, the summary omits the fact that up to 50 percent of the cattle may carry
the E. coli microbe during the summer months. It obscures the fact that the author
deliberately chose the lower, one-percent figure as a baseline from which to draw a
conclusion. The phrases "on any given day" and "every hour" are suggestive halftruths and completely inappropriate.
Lastly, the summary misstates the Eric Schlosser quote, which will lead the reader to
a wrong conclusion. There is a world of difference between the words are and can.
The summary states that 32,000 pounds of ground beef are contaminated every
hour. In fact, in the original, Schlosser said "can contaminate", which only implies
Accurate Summary:
In her Green Guide article, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much" Mindy Pennybacker
states that one percent of feedlot cattle during the winter, and as much as 50
percent during the summer, carry the E. coli microbe from the feedlot to the
slaughter house. Using Eric Schlosser's one percent baseline argument calculating
three to four infected animals being slaughtered every hour, Pennybacker illustrates
that 32,000 pounds of ground beef risk being contaminated every time one infected
animal is eviscerated.

Being Objective
Being objective is as important as being accurate. It's a matter of fairness.
Interjecting personal opinions into the ideas or information in your summary
confuses the reader buy obscuring the information in the original source material.
Expressing your attitude toward it, whether negative or positive, is inappropriate and
self-serving.
You may express your own opinions, of course, but that should be done in the
surrounding comments framing your summary. Bear in mind, being respectful is
simply a matter of good form when arguing a difference of opinion.

Example of Being Objective

Here is an example of source material being summarized in a non-objective manner
and a brief discussion of the writer interjecting a personal bias. An objective
summary follows.

Original Source:
Other environmental costs include depletion of natural resources. It takes 4.8 pounds
of grain to produce one pound of beef, Jim Motavalli reports in E Magazine. Animal
feed corn "consumes more chemical herbicide and fertilizer that any other crop,"
Pollan writes, noting that the petrochemical fertilizer used to grow corn, he says,
"takes vast quantities of oil-1.2 gallons for every bushel." The cow Pollan has bought
"will have consumed in his lifetime roughly 284 gallons of oil." The industrial food
system guzzles fossil fuels at a time when we should be conserving energy for the
sake of our national security-and that of pristine ecosystems such as the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
--Excerpted from Mindy Pennybacker, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much"
Non-Objective Summary:
In her leftist Green Guide article, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much" Mindy
Pennybacker reports that it takes 1.2 gallons of petrochemical fertilizer to grow one
bushel of feed corn, making it the largest consumer of chemical herbicides among all
industrial-farmed crops. Quoting tree-hugging writer Michael Pollan, she then points
out, after first converting bushels to gallons, that a single cow consumes 284 gallons
of oil before fulfilling its inevitable obligation of a once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to
McDonalds. Concluding her environmental rant, she accuses the industrial foodproduction system of "guzzling" precious fossil fuel reserves at a time when we
should be conserving energy.
This is an unfair summary: the writer's bias is clearly obvious. In this example,
adjectives such as "leftist" and "tree-hugger" are derogatory labels deliberately
expressing the author's low regard for Pennybacker's opinion.
Characterizing her opinion as an "environmental rant" is also deliberately belittling
and the "pilgrimage to McDonalds" remark borders on editorializing, neither of which
is appropriate in a summary.
Unfair labels and editorializing fall outside the boundaries of a summary for the
simple reason that they add nothing new or helpful to the process of understanding
the actual information. As a matter of fact, they get in the way, succeeding only in
exposing personal biases.
Such distractions can lead the reader to question your motives and whether you are
fully informed; to question whether your opinion is reasoned and credible.
In the revision below, the opinion of the writer has been removed and the summary
succeeds in being far more objective. Notice that it is also much shorter.

Objective Summary:
In her Green Guide article, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much" Mindy Pennybacker
reports that 1.2 gallons of petrochemical fertilizer is required to grow one bushel of
feed corn, making it the largest consumer of chemical herbicides among industrialfarmed crops. Using Michael Pollan's calculations to illustrate how conventional
farming practices consume fossil fuels, she points out that a single cow, on a diet of
petrochemically fertilized field-corn, will consume 284 gallons of oil in its lifetime.

Being Focused
Being focused means not wandering off-topic. Stick to what's important. A good
summary highlights only those facts, ideas, opinions, etc., that are useful in helping
your reader understand the topic being presented. Avoid a detailed account of the
minutia contained in your source material.
Including minute details hinders the reader's ability to understand why the
summarized information is relevant to your document in the first place and can lead
them to conclude that you may not fully understand your topic.

Example of Being Focused

Here is an example of an unfocused summary and a brief discussion of how the
writer wanders off point. A much more focused summary follows.

Original Source:
Better Farming Methods: Organic farming of animals and field crops is cleaner.
"Conventional farmers have no regulations regarding management of manure.
Organic does," says Fred Kirschenmann, Ph.D., director of the Leopold Center for
Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University. "You have to leave at least 90 days120 days for root crops-between application of manure and the harvest. That's how
long it takes for bacteria such as E. coli to degrade and become neutralized in the
soil." Kirschenmann, who was a member of the National Organic Standards Board,
expresses regret that the final rules don't require that ruminant animals be "pasturebased" to ensure that they get out and graze. In practice, though, "all the organic
meat producers I know of are small, two to three hundred head, and they all graze,
get exercise, eat organic foods-just before slaughter they are switched to corn, which
is usually grown on the farm," says Scowcroft. If a cow gets sick and is treated with
antibiotics, it cannot be labeled "organic." Wihelm says she would welcome an
organic hog farm as a neighbor. Consumers can also seek ecological, humanely
raised meat from local farms, or look for other sustainable labels.
--Excerpted from Mindy Pennybacker, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much"
Unfocused Summary:
In her Green Guide article, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much" Mindy Pennybacker
argues that applying organic methods when raising field crops and animals makes for
cleaner farming practices. Citing Fred Kirschenmann, director of the Leopold Center

for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University and a member of the National
Organic Standards Board, she points out that E. coli bacteria requires 90-120 days
between manure application and the actual harvest to be rendered harmless. Since
organic farmers must abide by regulations established by the National Organic
Standards Board to be certified as organic, manure application to their crop fields is
carefully monitored. Conventional farmers have no such oversight. Completely
unmonitored, manure gets applied to their crops in ways that are hazardous to the
environment. In turn, this creates ideal conditions in which E. coli, Salmonella and
other infectious bacteria thrive and enter the food chain.
While this summary is accurate, it includes points that do little to help the reader
understand the main focus. The fact that organic farming is cleaner than
conventional farming is not really the point, nor the fact that a 90-120 day cycle is
required for E. coli to be rendered completely harmless.
The main point is that, unlike organic farms, manure management on conventional
farms is completely unregulated which creates a dangerously unhealthy environment
in which to raise farm crops and animals.
Extra details clutter up this summary, creating additional distractions the reader
must wade through while trying to grasp its main focus. The fact that Fred
Kirschenmann directs the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State
University and is a member of the National Organic Standards Board is a case in
point. It's extremely wordy and completely irrelevant.
Now, suppose the "90-120 day" detail in the summary was necessary. Should Fred
Kirschenmann be cited? Not necessarily. Information of this sort quite often falls into
the category of widely-accepted. Check a variety of resources. If you can find such
information readily, it is not privately-held intellectual property and authorship need
not be cited.
The following revision eliminates unnecessary details and is much more sharply
focused on the main idea. Again, notice how much shorter the summary is.
Focused Summary:
In her Green Guide article, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much" Mindy Pennybacker
argues that, since organic farmers must abide by regulations established by the
National Organic Standards Board to be certified as organic, manure application to
their crop fields is carefully monitored. No other farmers have such oversight. As a
result, manure is applied to conventional crops in ways that are hazardous to the
environment, creating ideal conditions in which E. coli, Salmonella and other
infectious bacteria thrive and enter the food chain.

Being Concise
Being concise means being as brief as possible. Details, examples and descriptions
contained in the original source material should be removed, as well as information
repeated or rephrased in slightly varying ways.

The whole idea of a summary is to be direct and to get to the point. Being focused,
objective and accurate will go along way toward achieving this goal.

Example of Being Concise

Here is an example of an overly detailed and repetitive summary along with a brief
discussion of how it can be corrected. A concise summary follows and then, an even
more concise summary.

Original Source:
Stricter Regulation: "Delays in detection and recall of bad meat happen because
the industry is too weakly regulated," Schlosser says. "By the time the USDA
discovers tainted meat, it's already being distributed," he wrote in The Nation on
September 16. Since then, the agency has announced that it will begin random tests
at all meatpacking plants in the U.S., and will have the power to close facilities where
contamination is found.
What hasn't changed? The USDA still lacks the power to order the recall of
contaminated meat. "Every other defective product can be ordered off the market.
Mandatory recall is important because under the current voluntary standard the
company decides how much meat needs to be recalled and doesn't have to reveal
where the meat has been shipped," Schlosser says. He advises that we write our
congressional representatives in support of the SAFER Meat, Poultry, and Food Act
and the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act, which would give the agency
power to enforce limits on contaminants, order recalls and impose fines. The meat
industry says it cannot produce bacteria-free meat, so it's up to us to cook it until it's
safely well done (160 F) to kill E. coli. But the tainted food should not be getting to
us in the first place.
The industrial food system produces force-fed, disease-prone animals and people. An
estimated 120 million Americans are overweight or obese. McDonald's announced in
September, 2002 that it would switch to heart-healthier polyunsaturated vegetable
oil, but that won't make the fries any less fattening. It's just a gloss on the system in
which, through their massive purchasing and marketing power, giant companies
control how our food is produced, from seed to feed to processing. As Wilhelm says
of the big meat processors who buy from megafarms, "They say that we consumers
want this pork and they need it to come from one place to be efficient. "It's time we
consumers made it clear that industrial farms, fast foods and their costly
"efficiencies" are not what we want.
--Excerpted from Mindy Pennybacker, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much"
Overly Detailed and Repetitive Summary:
In her Green Guide article, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much" Mindy Pennybacker
exposes a weakness in the regulatory procedures with which the USDA monitors the
meatpacking industry: it lacks the power to order a recall of contaminated meat. By
the time it gets discovered, contaminated meat is already on the market. All the
USDA has done lately is announce random testing of all meatpacking plants in the
U.S. and threaten to close contaminated facilities when they are discovered.

Leaving safety up to the consumer, the meatpacking industry claims that producing
meat uncontaminated by E. coli and other bacteria is impossible. They say that meat
cooked to 160 kills the bacteria. Consumers who cook their meat safely to 160 are
in no danger. But the question remains: Why is tainted food allowed to get to the
market in the first place? The answer, supplied by the meat-packing industry, is that
consumers demand the product and suppliers can only meet the demand in an
efficient manner by buying from giant mega farms that control production without
the USDA looking over their shoulder.
Pennybacker's argues for mandating stricter regulations on meatpackers because
tainted meat is being distributed and, after it's too late, meat is voluntarily recalled.
The whole operation is managed, with no USDA oversight, by the meatpackers.
Meatpacking companies who recall contaminated meat decide how much to recall
and are not required to report where the meat was shipped and how much is actually
recalled. She urges that every concerned person write congress in support of the
SAFER Meat, Poultry and Food Act and the Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act. Enacting
these laws would empower the USDA to enforce limits, order recalls and impose
fines.
The giant industrial food complex that controls food production, from seeding the
fields to slaughtering the meat, and that wields massive purchasing and marketing
power should not be in charge of voluntarily ordering recalls of tainted meat that has
already made it to the marketplace.
In this summary, the writer includes unnecessary details and repeats information in
manner that adds no new information to the reader's knowledge. The fact that
tainted meat gets to the market, for instance is mentioned in each paragraph,
though each time it is worded in a slightly different way.
The second paragraph presents an argument that is not central to the main point:
USDA regulations need to be stricter and the agency needs to have greater
enforcement power. The components of an argument should not be included in a
summary unless summarizing the argument itself is the purpose.
Details such as what the USDA "has done lately" and how to "safely cook meat"
should not be included in this summary either, as they do not inform the reader
about the author's main point. Notice that the summary is nearly as long as the
original passage.
By eliminating details and repetitious language, as in the following example, the
summary will be far more concise while still providing an accurate picture of the
author's main point.
Concise Summary:
In her Green Guide article, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much" Mindy Pennybacker
exposes a weakness in the regulatory procedures with which the USDA monitors the
meatpacking industry: it lacks the power to order a recall of contaminated meat. By
the time it gets discovered, contaminated meat is already on the market.

Pennybacker's argues for mandating stricter regulations on meatpackers, noting that

recalling meat is currently a voluntary operation wherein the industry itself decides
how much to recall while not being required to report from where it was recalled.
She urges that every concerned person write congress in support of the SAFER Meat,
Poultry and Food Act and the Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act. Enacting these laws
would empower the USDA to enforce limits, order recalls and impose fines.
The giant industrial food complex that controls food production, from seeding the
fields to slaughtering meat, and that wields massive purchasing and marketing
power should not be in charge of voluntarily ordering recalls of tainted meat that has
already made it to the marketplace.
An Even More Concise Summary:
In her Green Guide article, "Why Fast Food Costs Too Much" Mindy Pennybacker
exposes a weakness in the regulatory procedures with which the USDA monitors the
meatpacking industry: it lacks the power to order a recall of contaminated meat. By
the time it gets discovered, contaminated meat is already on the market.
Pennybacker's argues for mandating stricter regulations on meatpackers, urging that
every concerned person write congress in support of the SAFER Meat, Poultry and
Food Act and the Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act. Enacting these laws would
empower the USDA to enforce limits, order recalls and impose fines