1. Improperly documented. McLuhan isn’t the source and wouldn’t be on the Works Cited. It comes from Boxer’s article. So, the proper documentation would be (qtd. in Boxer).
2. Improperly stated and documented. First, this oversimplifies a litte what the article actually says. But in addition, it takes an idea from the article that needs to be cited. So, at the very least, you would need (Boxer) at the end.
3. This is not stated anywhere in the article. It really isn’t a proper statement for the body of a researched paper. Maybe it is something that you could use in an introduction, but you usually want to avoid such sweeping generalizations. (Your hint that it is too broad: “Ever since television was created…” Really? Did you research that much?)
4. This is a misuse for two reasons. First, although it is a direct quote and properly cited, it is a floating quote. Related to this is the bigger issue. The writer provides no context for Boxer’s question, and, by placing it after the claim that “unscrupulous people will manipulate” television for “purposes of propaganda,” makes it seem as though that was Boxer’s point. But it wasn’t. This is a classic case of taking a quote out of context.
5. This is a logical conclusion to reach from Boxer’s article. Does it have to be cited? I would say that it is general enough that, no, it doesn’t. However, as soon as the writer starts to use specific examples to support the conclusion, he/she would have to cite those.
6. This is misuse of the article because the information in the article doesn’t support the first part of the statement. Boxer never says the weather reports are included because people are concerned about the escalation of war. That doesn’t even really make sense. As far as citing, this is a statement that, if I saw it in your research paper, I would probably comment asking what support you have. If you THEN tried to cite Boxer or if you took part of her sentence about weather reports out of context and cited it to back up your statement, you would be improperly citing because you would be misrepresenting what she said.
7. The first part of this OK. But the second sentence is plagiarized. It is a direct quote, first of all, so it should be in quotations. And since it is a quotation–and quotations ALWAYS need to be cited–there should be parenthetical documentation after the quote. The “According the Sarah Boxer” in the preceding sentence does NOT “cover” the quote, too.
8. The first part of the sentence is OK. But everything after “such as” is plagiarized. Starting with “when,” the writer has used Boxer’s exact wording. Therefore, these must be in quotation marks AS WELL AS cited at the end.