Purposeful Summaries- Thecommoncase

Clean Girls Get Sicker?

It seems counterintuitive to let children roll around in the dirt to ensure that they’re in good health, but research shows that children who are introduced to more germs as an infant are less likely to get allergies, asthma, or autoimmune disorders.

Today there is something known as the hygiene hypothesis, which states that little girls are expected to be cleaner than young boys. Boys are encouraged to go outside and play while girls are much less likely to play outdoors. This could explain why women are more likely to develop asthma and allergies than men.

That being said, allergies, asthma, and autoimmune disorders are increasing for both sexes across the North and West. If the hygiene hypothesis is correct, we are decreasing our exposure to germs as a whole.

It needs to be pointed out that even though we have learned so much about how we interact with bacteria, there is still so much we need to learn about the complexity of germs and how we are effected by them, for better or for worse.

Free Heroine to Battle Addiction

It would seem counterintuitive that addicts are being given free heroine, but Vancouver has been using this as a technique to control its heroine problem.

Drugs are smuggled into the city off of its ports, and is particularly popular in a part of Vancouver called “Downtown Eastside”. In an effort to tackle this problem, city officials have a safe zone call Insite where addicts are monitored by medical staff.

This safe zone is only offered to a handful of the worst addicts in Vancouver. Before Insite was put into effect, researchers were giving addicts alternative drugs as a way to treat heroine. This method worked from some, but those who were still struggling to kick their heroine habit now have it practically prescribed to them. Doctors call this ‘harm reduction’, saying that in a controlled environment they won’t be put in the desperate situations addicts often find themselves in.

Some see this as a form of blackmail, pointing out that addicts could claim they need more heroine and threaten to take a stranger’s money so they can go buy it somewhere else. People that work at rehabilitation centers in Vancouver reject this idea of a safe zone, saying that the city is killing these people more comfortably.

Gun Regulation

It seems counterintuitive that a mentally unstable person can be rejected from school, but is able to purchase a gun and ammunition with no questions asked. Anything that could cause harm to people is steadily monitored and tested, ensuring its safety. But it is not as much of a cautious process when it comes to buying a gun.

With more people dying from shootings, more people are buying guns to protect themselves. There is evidence that disproves that families are safer with guns in their homes.

States with more gun owners have higher suicide and murder rates simply because the weapon is already in the home. With the increase of guns in the home, children in America die from gun wounds than children in third-world countries.

To deal with this, it’s suggested that the government should restrict how many guns someone can purchase in a short period of time, which would reduce the number of gun purchases and gun trafficking. Other countries have taken more action in limiting gun purchases and have seen a significant decrease in firearm suicides and homicide rates.

This entry was posted in Purposeful Summaries, thecommoncase. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Purposeful Summaries- Thecommoncase

  1. davidbdale says:

    Let’s look at the first example in detail, CC

    It seems counterintuitive to let children roll around in the dirt to ensure that they’re in good health, but research shows that children who are introduced to more germs as an infant are less likely to get allergies, asthma, or autoimmune disorders.

    This is a terrific opening statement. It identifies exactly what’s counterintuitive about how to keep kids from getting sick.

    Today there is something known as the hygiene hypothesis, which states that little girls are expected to be cleaner than young boys.

    Both statements are true, but the logic is not. There is a hygiene hypothesis. And little girls are expected to be cleaner than young boys. But that’s not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is that BECAUSE we keep girls cleaner, they’re more likely to get sick.

    Boys are encouraged to go outside and play while girls are much less likely to play outdoors. This could explain why women are more likely to develop asthma and allergies than men.

    Right. This sentence explains the hypothesis correctly.

    That being said, allergies, asthma, and autoimmune disorders are increasing for both sexes across the North and West. If the hygiene hypothesis is correct, we are decreasing our exposure to germs as a whole.

    Fine observation. Both males and females are getting more autoimmune, but females more than males.

    It needs to be pointed out that even though we have learned so much about how we interact with bacteria, there is still so much we need to learn about the complexity of germs and how we are effected by them, for better or for worse.

    Totally unnecessary. Purposeful Summary relieves you of the need to point out that we don’t know as much as we need to know. The hypothesis doesn’t claim to be a proof, just a theory.

    GRAMMAR NOTE: “how we are AFFECTED by them.”

    Like

  2. davidbdale says:

    Let’s do one more.

    It would seem counterintuitive that addicts are being given free heroine, but Vancouver has been using this as a technique to control its heroine problem.

    USAGE NOTE: The female hero of your story is your HEROINE. The addictive drug is HEROIN.
    As a first sentence, this is pretty solid.

    Drugs are smuggled into the city off of its ports, and is particularly popular in a part of Vancouver called “Downtown Eastside”. In an effort to tackle this problem, city officials have a safe zone call Insite where addicts are monitored by medical staff.

    PUNCTUATION NOTE: Eastside.” (Periods and commas ALWAYS go inside the quotation marks.)
    USAGE NOTE: Drugs are smuggled THROUGH its ports.
    Logically, your paragraph is hard to follow. What “is particularly popular”? Drugs? Smuggling? The Ports? What is the problem the city is trying to solve? That the drugs come through the ports? That there’s a hot spot called “Eastside”? How does the safe zone solve the problem of Eastside?

    This safe zone is only offered to a handful of the worst addicts in Vancouver. Before Insite was put into effect, researchers were giving addicts alternative drugs as a way to treat heroine. This method worked from some, but those who were still struggling to kick their heroine habit now have it practically prescribed to them. Doctors call this ‘harm reduction’, saying that in a controlled environment they won’t be put in the desperate situations addicts often find themselves in.

    It would be more accurate to say that the heroin is offered only to a handful of addicts. The drug, not the Safe Zone, is being offered.
    PUNCTUATION NOTE: Double Quotation marks ALWAYS. Doctors call this “harm reduction.”
    SYNTAX NOTE: Your pronoun refers to the wrong noun. “THEY won’t be put into desperate situations” can only refer back to “doctors.”

    Some see this as a form of blackmail, pointing out that addicts could claim they need more heroine and threaten to take a stranger’s money so they can go buy it somewhere else.

    It’s certainly not blackmail. They’re not threatening to expose anybody’s secrets.

    People that work at rehabilitation centers in Vancouver reject this idea of a safe zone, saying that the city is killing these people more comfortably.

    Purposeful Summary relieves you of the need to “be fair” to “both sides” of an argument. Your job is to promote the interpretation that seems most reasonable to you as the author of new material. If you’re going to entertain the opinions of the rehab staff, you should counter their position with your alternative conclusion. The Safe Zone prevents accidental deaths from overdose and criminal violence and is offered only to patients for whom years of preventive treatments have failed. Or something like that.

    Like

  3. davidbdale says:

    Before I go, one more rhetorical note:

    It seems counterintuitive that a mentally unstable person can be rejected from school, but is able to purchase a gun and ammunition with no questions asked.

    It does not seem counterintuitive that a mentally unstable person can be rejected from school. Your reader immediately takes issue with your claim. That’s the last thing you want from your first sentence. Eliminate that confusion with better phrasing.
    —It seems counterintuitive that a mentally unstable person WHO HAS BEEN rejected from school CAN purchase a gun and ammunition with no questions asked.
    —It seems counterintuitive that WE BAR A mentally unstable person from school BUT SELL HIM a gun and ammunition with no questions asked.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s