Source: R1A F25 U1 L4 lecture notes
Tags: writing analysis, diagnostic feedback, paraphrasing errors, quoting errors, intellectual property, fashion law, clear writing, academic integrity, R1A Berkeley
Good academic writing explains concepts clearly, introduces key terms and people for unfamiliar readers, and handles source material with precision. Common student errors include failing to explain who people or companies are, misquoting sources, paraphrasing too closely to the original, and adding information not present in the source.
Clear explanation (in academic writing)
Writing that presents an idea so a reader unfamiliar with the topic can follow the logic. Involves defining terms, providing context, and structuring sentences so each one builds on the last.
Paraphrasing too closely / patchwriting
Rearranging or lightly rewording a source's sentence structure while keeping most of its original phrasing. This does not count as genuine paraphrasing and can constitute a form of academic dishonesty.
Misquoting
Changing a source's exact words while still presenting them inside quotation marks, or attributing words to a source that the source did not say.
Adding unsupported information
Including details in a paraphrase or summary that were not present in the original source, such as reasons, motivations, or context the source never mentioned.
The lecture compares three student passages (A, B, C) explaining intellectual property law in fashion. Key observations:
Passage B is the clearest because it explains the legal reasoning (apparel is considered utilitarian, not artistic) and walks through consequences (no patent-style protection, the "basic building blocks" concern, the power-dynamic issue)
Passage A raises many rhetorical questions without answering them, which creates confusion rather than clarity. The phrasing is also imprecise (e.g., "copyright varies through different countries" is vague)
Passage C states the conclusion (no IP protection for fashion) but is too brief and does not explain why the law works this way. It also contains a sentence fragment ("As explained by Blakely's 'Lesson from fashion's free culture'.")
The lecture compares passages (W, X, Y, Z) on whether they explain who people and companies are:
Passage Z is the strongest because it identifies Marcelo Gaia by name, explains he owns Mirror Palais, names specific designs (Baby I'm Yours, Starlite), gives price points ($395 and $995), names the retail stores (Revolve, FWRD, SSense), and names where dupes appear (TikTok Shop under $30)
Passage Y names Gaia and Mirror Palais but contains errors (spells it "Palias," calls it "Mirror Palias"), and the sentence structure is awkward ("had been a cash cow by fast-fashion brands" is grammatically unclear)
Passage W discusses influencers and dupe brands but never names specific people, brands, or prices
Passage X is entirely general, with no names, figures, or examples at all
The lecture reviews seven original-vs-student passage pairs. The key issues:
Student passage 1 (Zentuoro source)
Acceptable paraphrase. It correctly captures the data point (20,000 litres for jeans) in the student's own words with attribution.
Student passage 2 (Scafidi & Rodriguez source)
Problem: the student adds context and framing ("Many have tried to mitigate this issue by partnering up") that is not in the original passage.
The student also misrepresents the tone. The original describes the proposals positively ("cutting-edge models of legal restraint"), but the student frames them negatively ("only to be met with a new enforcement where the protection is limited").
Student passage 3 (Schlott source – "unpaid R&D")
Problem: the student changes the quote. The original says "unpaid R&D department," but the student writes "unpaid research and development team." If you use quotation marks, the words inside must be exact.
The attribution is also shifted. The original quote comes from an unnamed "he" speaking to The Post. The student attributes it directly to Marcelo Gaia, which may be correct in context but is not what the quoted passage itself says.
Student passage 4a (Tom Ford / Blakley source)
Problem: misquoting. Ford's original words are "the counterfeit customer was not our customer." The student writes "Dupe customers are not our customers," which changes the wording while still using quotation marks. "Dupe" and "counterfeit" are not interchangeable terms.
Student passage 4b (Tom Ford / Blakley source)
Acceptable paraphrase. The student restates the idea in their own words (counterfeit products attract different consumer groups) and identifies Ford as "the lead designer of Gucci," providing useful context.
Student passage 5a (Schlott source – "cash cows")
Problem: patchwriting. The student passage is nearly identical to the original. Compare:
Original: "his original, proprietary designs have been cash cows for fast-fashion brands like Shein"
Student: "his designs have been cash cows for fast fashion brands like Shein"
The student has only deleted a few words. This is not genuine paraphrasing.
Student passage 5b (same source)
Problem: the student borrows heavily from the source and adds information not in the original (e.g., "whose product has an average selling price at $500" and "who sold Gaia's knock-offs at $20"). These details may come from elsewhere, but they are not in the cited passage, which creates confusion about what the source actually says.
Also misspells "Mirror Palais" as "Mirror Palias."
Student passage 6 (Francombe source – Bottega Jodie bag)
Problem: the student adds reasons not stated in the original. The original says the friend bought a dupe Bottega Jodie bag as a celebratory gift. The student adds "because of the same quality, manufacture process and the low price," none of which the original passage mentions.
Student passage 7 (Scafidi & Rodriguez source – "legally naked")
Acceptable use of a key phrase in quotation marks ("legally naked"). The student paraphrases the broader idea and uses the quote to introduce a specific term.
However, the student also adds a claim ("so as long as you don't use another company's logo, anything is legal") that oversimplifies the legal landscape and is not directly from the cited passage.
⚠️ Patchwriting (barely rewording a source) is one of the most common paraphrasing errors and can be flagged as academic dishonesty.
⚠️ If you use quotation marks, the words inside must be the source's exact words. Changing even one key term (e.g., "counterfeit" to "dupe") while keeping the quote marks is a misquote.
⚠️ Never add information to a paraphrase that is not in the original passage you are citing. If the detail comes from a different source, cite that source instead.
⚠️ When introducing a person or company in your writing, always explain who they are. Do not assume your reader knows that Marcelo Gaia owns Mirror Palais or that Tom Ford was a designer at Gucci.
Q: What is the difference between patchwriting and genuine paraphrasing?
A: Patchwriting keeps the source's sentence structure and most of its phrasing, only swapping out a few words. Genuine paraphrasing restates the idea in entirely new language and structure while preserving the original meaning.
Q: A student writes: Ford said, "Dupe customers are not our customers." The original quote is: "the counterfeit customer was not our customer." What is the error?
A: This is a misquote. The student changed "counterfeit" to "dupe" and pluralised "customer/customers," but kept quotation marks. Words inside quotation marks must be exact.
Q: A student paraphrases a source about a dupe handbag and adds "because of the same quality and low price." The original source never mentions quality or price as reasons. What is the error?
A: The student has added unsupported information. A paraphrase must reflect only what the original source says, not the student's assumptions or details from other sources.
Q: Why is it important to identify people and companies when you mention them in academic writing?
A: Your reader may not know who these people are. Providing context (e.g., name, role, company, relevant details) ensures the reader can follow your argument without needing outside knowledge.
patchwriting, misquoting, paraphrasing errors, academic integrity, close paraphrase, adding unsupported information, introducing sources, identifying key figures, writing clarity, intellectual property fashion, R1A diagnostic feedback, UC Berkeley, Schlott, Scafidi, Rodriguez, Blakley, Tom Ford, Marcelo Gaia, Mirror Palais