Free Heroin to Battle Addiction
It seems counterintuitive that Vancouver has chosen to cure a heroin addicts addiction, by supplying them with the best heroin in the world. This is a program that in which heroin addicts are supplied with heroin prescribed by a doctor to “fight their demons”. Addiction is merely a psychological attachment due to the repeated use of something.
I feel as though you can’t cure someone’s addiction with the thing that has them addicted, it simply cancels itself. It is almost like giving a serial killer a gun or better yet, giving a thief a code to the bank. It makes you sit back and ask yourself , what good are you really doing. The program is about helping addicts by giving them the drug that they yearn for, it is said to help society by having less overdoses, less prostitution, and just overall much less heroin related crimes. The drug itself is what causes this mass hysteria. They thought that by giving them this drug it would help. It is a perplexing situation especially when it comes to moral.
It seems counterintuitive that a man named Jared Loughner was consider too mentally unstable to attend a community college , also rejected by the army. Yet he was able to buy a Glock with a 33 round magazine and nobody sees an issue with that. This goes to show that guns can be possessed by anyone. If someone isn’t able to go the Army, how on earth are they able to purchase and wield a Glock. This would mean that Jared who is a man who is deemed to be mentally unstable, has a dangerous weapon in his possession. This makes very little sense to me. Guns that are used to protect have seen to cause unnecessary senseless damage to the public.
How to Armor Planes
It seems counterintuitive to put armor where it is less needed on a plane. In this situation the obvious is the wrong. The planes would be examined and thoroughly checked out to see which parts had been dealt the most damage.
Instead of repairing those parts, the parts that were repaired were the ones that were least damaged. What I would really want to do is armor up those weak points and make sure I have a well balanced plane. The obvious answer would be to protect the weak points and maintain the strong points. The wrong thing to do would be to strengthen up the already strong points and let the weak ones suffer (which seems to be the situation at hand).
Kobe, these little arguments of yours are almost pure PURPOSE with no SUMMARY. You seem to have taken the lesson of expressing your opinion, but you’re failing in your responsibility to provide the reader enough background information to know what you’re talking about.
Read your argument about armoring planes and answer the question, “If I hadn’t read the story for myself, would I have any idea what this argument refers to?”
I think you missed the point of the original material. The crew who put armor on the planes to reinforce the areas that had been damaged on the planes that returned to the base MISUNDERSTOOD the evidence. Planes that suffered damage to POINT A but made it back obviously demonstrated that damage to POINT A was not critical. That means that reinforcing POINT A is a waste of time.
I’ve graded your assignment at Canvas, Kobe. If you’re satisfied with the grade, do nothing. If you’d like to revise for a better grade, make significant improvements to all three examples and place this post into the Regrade Please category.
Whichever you choose, responding to your professor’s feedback is not only polite, it’s the best way to assure that he continues to take an interest in your development as a writer. Any response is good. “Thanks, professor,” and “I have further questions,” and “What the hell was that!” are popular choices.
If you’d prefer to be ignored, leave no response at all. 🙂