Before beginning my words, I’d like to say that I didn’t truthfully do anything deliberate, and I didn’t do anything intentionally about being disrespectful toward both you and your course. I can definitely assure you about that. I honestly request you not to think about what I led to in that way. Even if I did something wrong, that would be coming from my pensiveness, not being disrespectful and inconsiderate toward you. Accordingly, I know how much rules are strict, severe and brutal if needed, particularly in the United States, where I consider there the capital of Capitalism. If you do not still believe me and do find me guilty, I promise that I will not lead this matter to drag out, following my defence. In addition, I realized afterwards that I shoudn’t have withdrawn from your course at least at this stage where I have been facing this situation, even though you permitted me to do so. I’ve opted to go back into your course and try to do my best, for the time being, despite the way you graded my works. Because of my domestic, familiy problem incessantly carrying on dated from the beginning of this July and the unfortunate situation, I couldn’t come to life and dust myself off for three days. I couldn’t put up with neither of them and subsequently get up for three days, where I’m still trying to keep on doing my internship. That is also on account of that this is the first time on which I’m in confrontation of such an awful thing.
With reference to my discussion board post, let me tell shortly what I tried to do as general. Honestly, I was trying to branch the concept of market judgements into some categories, such as ethics itself or specifically interpersonal comparison of well-being. After that, I started to breakdown some concepts in the paper into specific types of market i.e perfectly competitive, monopolistic and oligopolistic, pertaining to relationships between capitalism and the entire market system. The provided articles had shallow concepts in relation to building relations between ethics , efficiency ,and market systems .I kindly added the words to make my argument stronger.
As regards the first part of the letter that I received by you, I do understand how you accused me of having utilized that notorious website by deriving from the data the Turnitin system detected. However, I have never been involved in that website, and I’ve never counted on those kinds of websites in my life, Sir. I swear to my family and God – I’m a Christian. Yes, I recognized that I made a mistake citing the page number 19, which even doesn’t exist in Friedman et al’s article, which is written against Friedman’s sentiment regarding the way he regards the concept of social responsibility. I recognized that the unfortunate part of that mistake is to be found plagiarised where I mistakenly put the citation in the wrong place. It was supposed to be at the beginning of that passage also as 29, not 19, which would refer to the sentence “In a perfectly free competitive market, the buyers or sellers do not determine the value or price of goods and services, but such prices are determined by the forces of demand and supply”. I truly and sincerely apologize for this silly mistake, Sir. I was trying to incorporate the fact on page beginning at 29, which talks about the idea of putting customers ahead of investors. This must have been to mean that in such a system prices are only determined by market forces. I supposed that it shows that in such markets’ producers engages merely in open and fair competition. Furthermore, I thought the concept of demand and supply is only related to how fair a perfect market is. As per the article, as far as I am concerned, it says customers are put ahead of the investors, and the producers only concentrate in producing quality products where new competitors are allowed to join the market without restrictions.
Furthermore, for the first plagiarised passage at stake, I swear to God one more time that I don’t have any slightest thing to do with “www.studentoffortune.com”. I was not even familiar with it prior to you, Sir. After the first sentence of that paragraph in my opinion, Scalet’s article had some arguments but it was very shallow and not straightforward about that regard – at least that is how it occured to me. It is a totally different issue whether or not I’m right about that regard. Thus, I decided to make my arguments stronger, harnessing my personal ideas and ability of imagination. That being said, I incorporated the sentence to show how efficiency and elements of ethics can be maintained in a free market. It is the factors that can be utilized by organizations or firms to remain relevant in a market system. In the name of plagiarised portions in red, someone else could have formed similar or the exact structure of sentence in the need of these issues, Sir. I wouldn’t object to that you could judge me regarding my lack of attention or recklessness that is resulting from wrong citation. Nevertheless, I would definitely be against the verdict that I supposedly manipulated the sentence, taking advantage of other malicious websites.
In regard to the second plagiarised passage of the paper, I can definitely assure you one more time that I don’t have any slightest correlation with neither the South Dakota Board of Regents nor the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. To be getting into the details about that passage, I remember having worked on that part of the discussion posting after I had come from the company where I’m still doing my internship. I must have been as tired as forgetting to cite the author named Scalet.
Nowadays, my mind is still confused, and I’ve started not to enjoy my life at all, which must lead to those unfortunate mistakes. I kindly beg for your forgiveness and i swear on my life i will be extra careful with my work from now on.
I’d like you also to accept my mistake and i truly apologize about it. I’m still suffering from remorse how I could possibly make that mistake. If I really made that mistake consciously, that wouldn’t have made me gain anything, Sir. Besides forgetting to cite the author, as you can see, capitalist justice and maximize utility must be commonly used phrases in these subjects, particularly in Scalet’s article implicitly. I technically opted to use capitalism justice and maximize utility to show that most of the evils in the current market system is as a result of Capitalism. The Scalet’s Article provides various reasons as per different theorists in regard to issues relating to corporate responsibility. The article benefited me by providing various theorists position in regard to issues affecting markets. This should be clearly established from page 2 in that article, as far as I suppose. Plus, my sentiment might still be considered wrong or partially incorrect, but that is how I interpreted that situation, Sir. I can definitely assure you one more time that I didn’t benefit from any passages or any places that could possibly work for me. I admit that I forgot to cite Scalet. For this issue, I have no other choice other than asking for your forgiveness to give me a chance to make it up.
As regards the positive rights of buyers and sellers, in the passage, it occured to me from the concept of Scalet where it says “Stockholder have claims over all the profits of the Corporation and management has a sole duty to shareholder interests” (6), I think this means in a normal market, corporations are only interested in making profits, and such problems can solely be averted in perfectly competitive market. Therefore, the positive rights of buyers and sellers are only maintained in perfectly competitive market. I also preferred to include the negative ones since I thought in a free market, both sellers and buyers have equal rights to trade and buy goods and services freely without being coerced. Though Capitalism is viewed by many that it promotes individualism and personal acquisition of wealth, it promotes economic growth that benefits all. I suppose, Sir, this should mean that capitalism provides opportunities that make live bearable for both the rich and the poor. In other words, despite that Capitalism encourage individualism, it provides equal rights to all market players, thus promoting both positive and negative ( balanced ) rights.
If truth be told, I apparently made some mistakes that could be considered irrecoverable. I’m terribly sorry for possibly leading you to think of me as being disrespectful toward both you and your course. I badly want to apologize for all those stuffs on you in person. It might be considered weird, but colloquially I’m largely begging you to give me another chance to lead me to try to do my best in this course. I promise you that it will never and ever happen again in not only your course, but my other courses. To be clear one more time, I can only admit having made some silly and ridiculous mistakes, most likely due to high work load on me, even in the summer. In case you forgive me, I have to study for the week 3 course material, which I’ve already got started. Nevertheless, you should know that I still feel upset out of being stigmatized with such a terrible thing. I have been tensed the whole week and i have not managed to do anything constructive because of this mess. The fact that I may thank you for this situation seems weird I suppose, but I’ve already learned some stuffs about how to be much more careful no matter what your reasoning would be after this defense. Therefore, whether or not you forgive me is entirely up to your ultimate decision, Sir.
I’M HONESTLY SORRY FOR EVERYTHING, AND I DO APOLOGIZE FOR ANYTHING THAT CAUSED PLAGIARISM AND MAKE YOU THINK OF ME AS AN INCONSIDERATE STUDENT. THANKS FOR EVERTHING AND MAY GOD BLESS YOU.