Subject: Appeal Regarding Alleged Use of AI and Turnitin Accuracy Dear Writer .

Subject: Appeal Regarding Alleged Use of AI and Turnitin Accuracy
Dear Writer .
I am writing to formally address the claim that I have used AI in my coursework, as well as the assertion that my professor notified me on several occasions regarding this violation. I would like to clarify that I did not use AI in any of my submissions. I believe there has been a misunderstanding, and I would like to provide some context to support my position.
Firstly, I understand that Turnitin is an effective tool for detecting similarities in academic writing. However, it is important to note that Turnitin is not infallible. The system is not 100% accurate and can sometimes generate false positives, especially when it comes to identifying content that may be similar in structure or phrasing, but is not necessarily plagiarized or AI-generated. I strongly believe that this may be the case in my situation, and I would appreciate it if someone with a thorough understanding of how Turnitin works could review my work to ensure the results are interpreted correctly.
Additionally, I feel it is important to acknowledge the nature of my interactions with the professor in question. Throughout the course, I noticed that the professor seemed to focus heavily on minute details in my work, sometimes to the extent that it felt as though any small imperfection could be used as a reason to fail me. This led me to feel that the professor was being overly critical, possibly with the intention of making it difficult for me to succeed in the class. As a result, I chose to avoid further direct communication with him, as I felt that his intentions were not entirely supportive of my academic success.
In light of these concerns, I respectfully request a fair and impartial review of my case. I am confident that upon a closer examination, it will be clear that I have not used AI, and that any perceived discrepancies in my work can be attributed to factors unrelated to academic dishonesty. I am fully committed to upholding academic integrity and am eager to resolve this matter in a transparent and fair manner.
Thank you for your attention to this appeal. I look forward to your understanding and assistance in rectifying this situation.
Sincerely,
O.
Dear Orlando,
You recently submitted an Academic Misconduct Appeal for GOVT – 200 – C10, which has now received an official decision by the appropriate academic leadership.
Please review the decision and recommended sanction below.
Decision: Faculty are obligated to report apparent academic integrity violations. The faculty member has done so. All students have been made aware of the university’s academic integrity policies and are responsible for following the university’s academic integrity policies. Multiple areas of this submission appear to be in violation of the university’s academic integrity polices. For example, several phrases are very general in substance, and the tone is consistent as well with AI text. Many of these same passages are flagging in the Turnitin tool as AI generated (and not AI paraphrased) content. The student has not provided compelling evidence to show that the faculty report was in error. This faculty member provided the student with multiple warnings about the use of AI tools in multiple previous submissions and did not sanction those submissions. Appeal is denied.
Sanction: 100% Reduction
If you wish to further appeal this sanction, please click on the button below and follow the steps provided. You may submit a final appeal within 7 calendar days of this notification. Once your final appeal is reviewed, you will receive an email notification regarding the outcome.
This is the Discussion Board
Your analysis of Ken S. Ewert’s “Moral Criticisms of the Market” offers a thorough understanding of the ethical concerns surrounding market systems. Ewert’s argument that profit often overshadows morality resonates strongly, particularly in light of the growing wealth inequality documented by Piketty (2020). This disparity is indeed a pressing issue, contributing to social unrest and a declining standard of living for many.
Ewert’s discussion on the commodification of essential services is particularly compelling. The point that market forces can restrict access to healthcare and education for those who need them most highlights a fundamental ethical dilemma. The World Health Organization (2021) further supports this concern by indicating that healthcare privatization can lead to unequal outcomes and limited access, especially for underserved populations.
Additionally, your mention of consumer sovereignty and its relationship with corporate influence is critical. Ewert’s argument that consumer choices are often manipulated by corporate interests raises significant ethical questions about the authenticity of consumer agency. The research by Williams and Barlow (2023) underscores how advertising can distort true needs, complicating the notion of informed consumerism.
In conclusion, Ewert’s critique serves as an important reminder of the ethical responsibilities embedded within economic systems. By acknowledging the limitations of a purely market-driven approach, we can advocate for policies that prioritize equality and human dignity alongside economic growth. Your support for this perspective is well-founded and highlights the need for a more equitable and just economic framework.
References
Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and ideology. Harvard University Press.
Williams, R., & Barlow, A. (2023). The impact of corporate advertising on consumer behavior: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(2), 345-360.
World Health Organization. (2021). The impact of privatization on healthcare access and outcomes. Retrieved from [WHO website URL]