Take a look at the excerpt and paraphrase below and answer the following question.
NB: The examples use APA referencing style.

Original excerpt:

“Throughout most of human history, calories were relatively scarce and hard to get, and physical activity unavoidable” (Katz, 2011, p. 1).

Paraphrase:

Humans evolved when food was scarce and physical activity unavoidable (Katz, 2011).

What’s wrong with this paraphrase?

Question

Take a look at the excerpt and paraphrase below and answer the following question. 
NB: The examples use APA referencing style.

Original excerpt:

“Throughout most of human history, calories were relatively scarce and hard to get, and physical activity unavoidable” (Katz, 2011, p. 1).

Paraphrase:

Humans evolved when food was scarce and physical activity unavoidable (Katz, 2011).

What’s wrong with this paraphrase?

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

We start by restating the question and all answer options to frame what we’re evaluating.
Question: What’s wrong with this paraphrase?
Answer options:
1) Similar length, same ideas, similar structure and language.
2) Similar length, different structure and language, but the idea has changed.
3) Substantially different length, similar structure and language, same idea.
4) Substantially different length, same idea, different structure and language.

Now, evaluate each choice with careful reasoning:
Option 1: Similar length, same ideas, similar structure and language.
- Why this is unlikely: The paraphrase is not very similar in language or structure to the original. It also omits key terms (calories) and specifics (most of human history, relatively scarce and hard to get, physical activity unavoidable) and instead uses different wording (food, evolved) and a much shorter form. The claim that it preserves the same ideas and structure is therefore inaccurate.
- Common pitfall this option highlights: assuming paraphrase fidelity when there are notable lexical and propositional changes.

Option 2: Similar length, different structure and language, but the idea has changed.
- Why this could be considered plausible: The paraphrase uses different wording and a different syntactic arrangement, which aligns with “different structure and language.” If the core idea (caloric scarcity driving activity) has shifted to a different framing (food scarcity, evolution), then the idea itself may have changed. The phrase “the idea has changed” captures concerns about whether the paraphrase preserves the exact meaning and scope of the original.
- Potential issue with this option: the paraphrase is not strictly the same length as the original; it appears shorter in practice, but depending on counting, some might still describe it as roughly similar. Still, it correctly notes changes in structure/ language and questions about idea preservation.

Option 3: Substantially different length, similar structure and language, same idea.
- Why this is unlikely: “Substantially different length” is not clearly supported by the paraphrase, which is relatively concise compared to the original. More critically, the structure and wording are not truly similar; the paraphrase reworks the core elements (calories vs. food, historical scope, “physical activity unavoidable” vs. implied inevitability) in a way that alters the appearance and potentially the meaning. Even if some surface features resemble the idea of scarcity prompting activity, the same idea claim is questionable due to content changes.
- This option risks conflating superficial linguistic features with deep semantic equivalence.

Option 4: Substantially different length, same idea, different structure and language.
- Why this is unlikely: If the idea were truly the same, one would expect the paraphrase to maintain the central claim about scarcity driving behavior, but the paraphrase shifts to “humans evolved when food was scarce,” which introduces evolution as a causal frame rather than just scarcity of calories and inevitability of activity. The shift in referents (calories to food) and the historical framing suggests the idea is not exactly the same. Moreover, stating “same idea” here conflicts with the altered specifics and scope present in the paraphrase.
- In other words, the paraphrase does not keep the same precise idea as the original; thus labeling it as the same idea is misleading.

Across these options, a nuanced reader would weigh fidelity of meaning, structural changes, and lexical shifts. The most defensible critique focuses on the fact that the paraphrase alters key content (calories vs. food, the historical framing, and the causal emphasis), and also changes the citation and specificity. While option 2 correctly notes that the structure and language differ and that the idea may have changed, it’s worth recognizing that the length claim may be arguable depending on counting, which is a common source of ambiguity in paraphrase evaluation.

MERGE_2025_0317 Academic Integrity Quiz

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

When I paraphrase, I must

Which paraphrase below best captures the author’s original evaluation and strength? Original: “Perhaps the most important attribute for introductory sociology students to acquire is sociological curiosity.”

Which is NOT a recommended paraphrasing strategy? Choose the item below that is NOT a strategy used to paraphrase information from source material.

What is NOT required for a successful paraphrase? Choose the item below that is NOT needed when paraphrasing an idea from source material.

Which statement about choosing class words is most accurate?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler