Summaries- icedcoffeeislife

Summary 1, The surprising sciences of happiness:

It seems counterintuitive that when a person makes a decision that they are going to be unhappy with the decision that they make. Throughout a person’s life they have to make decisions. Some are happy with the decision they make in the moment, but later on they may be unhappy later. According to Dan Gilbert, who is the author of “Stumbling onto Happiness”, he informas us on how a person finds happiness in the most unlikely places. He uses an example of how would be happier a person that won the lottery or a person that is parligiect. At the moment the people that one the lottery are happier than the people that just became parapligect, but a year later they are both equally as happy. This is due to them coming to terms with what has happened and finding happiness in what happened to them. This follows  into synthesising happiness, which is where people think they have found happiness, when truly they have not yet. 

Damn Gilber tmentions this to educate people on what truly makes them happy. This is counterintuitive, due to that if you decide to do one thing   instead of another, you could have been happier with doing the other thing. Dan explains this by showing a diagram of a photograph class at Harvard, which took photos of their favorite places on campus. After developing the film they were told they had to give their best image to hand in for credit for the class. One group is told that they can change their mind about which image they want to submit, they just have to reach out to the teacher to change it, where the other class is told they have to decide right on the stop and can not change their mind. Overall, the class that was told they could not change their mind, were happier with their picture then the class that could change it out. This is due to people like having a chance to change their mind, where in the long run they would have been happier with their work if they were in the class where they could not change their mind. 

Summary 2,  The Cruelest Show on Earth:

It seems counterintuitive that when the goverment punished Feld Entertainment for animal cruelty but let them of if they make a size able donation to a chartiyt to stop animal cruelty. With the conditions that the elephants are living in and how they are beign treated is unexceptable. Feld Entertainment has been video of how they take care of there animals,  they are not being taken care of like the say they were. Under otah Kenny Feld, The CEO of Feld entertainment, finally came clean on how the truely take care of the animals. They use bullhooks, whipping them, and sometimes electric prods to train the elephants, which is complicity different then what they have said in the past. But Fled Entertainemtn was let of with just a fine, becuase the goverment falied to do anything about it. It hard to believes that a counplain that is clearly being abuse is let of with jsut a slap on the wrist.

 Even after Kenny the elephansts death, there was still no inforced laws put in to protect the elephants. The treatment of e;lephants has not changed that much sinces P.T. Baurdum started using elephants in his circu, which was in 1850. When they first started using Elephants they would capture them in Africa and ship them over 12,00 miles back to new york city. At least one elephant died every trip. Even thogught this was in the 1800’s it is still upsetign too see know one was doing a think. The reason elephants where benign used were because they attracted a large aduidents do to the faination. Bu that came for a prive for the elephants because they were treated horrible. 

Summary 3, Does Using Paper Take CO2 out of the Environment?:

It is counterintuitive when one thing about recycling is said but then told a completely different the next minute. Some say that paper contains a lot of carbon dioxide, where others believe that if you cut a tree and plant another one then it will keep the carbon dioxide levels down. According to the articles, 16.7 million tons of carbon are sequestered in wood products found in landfills last year. This does include all paper products. However, further, in the article, the author is deemed incorrect by Ann Ingerson. Ingerson is a resource economist at the Wilderness society. Ann states that paper is not a good option to store carbon dioxide, due to it decomposing quickly. We are told two different opinions from people that make it counterintuitive on how to use paper to stop the production of carbon dioxide. Paper production is sent to China to show how it can be recycled into boxes that can later be used to send toys and electronics back to America. Paper has helped create a Sisyphean trans-Pacific cycle. This is not the best thing, but it does decrease the number of trees being cut down to create shipping containers.

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

3 Responses to Summaries- icedcoffeeislife

  1. davidbdale says:

    Let’s take a close look at your 3rd Example, Ice.

    Summary 3, Does Using Paper Take CO2 out of the Environment?:

    It is counterintuitive when one thing about recycling is said but then told a completely different the next minute.

    —Actually, that’s not counterintuitive at all. It WOULD be counterintuitive, for example, for one person (or a whole country) to believe that something was hazardous or harmful but act as if it were harmless. But for different people to have different opinions is entirely intuitive.
    —Regarding your syntax, you’ve violated the important rule of parallelism. You could correctly rephrase your two items in a couple of ways:
    1. It is counterintuitive when ONE THING about recycling IS SAID, but then ANOTHER THING IS SAID the next minute.
    2. It is counterintuitive when A PERSON SAYS ONE THING about recycling one minute, but then SAYS A VERY DIFFERENT THING the next.

    Some say that paper contains a lot of carbon dioxide, where others believe that if you cut a tree and plant another one then it will keep the carbon dioxide levels down.

    Why can’t both be true? Trees capture carbon in their wood. Wood becomes pulp becomes paper without releasing the carbon. AND planting new trees captures more carbon. Not contradictory.

    According to the articles, 16.7 million tons of carbon are sequestered in wood products found in landfills last year.

    So far, so good. Sequestered carbon stays out of the atmosphere. But it will break down in the landfill, releasing its carbon again.

    This does include all paper products.

    Why does this need its own sentence?

    However, further, in the article, the author is deemed incorrect by Ann Ingerson.

    Hard to know how you mean “incorrect” here, Ice. Does Ingerson deny that millions of tons of carbon are sequestered in paper products? (Or does Ingerson just think making paper is A BAD WAY to reduce atmospheric carbon?)

    Ingerson is a resource economist at the Wilderness society.

    Again, why does this get its own sentence?

    Ann states that paper is not a good option to store carbon dioxide, due to it decomposing quickly.

    I’m going to combine the last three sentences for you: Ann Ingerson, a resource economist at the Wilderness society, declares that making paper is NOT the best method for keeping carbon from returning to the atmosphere.

    We are told two different opinions from people that make it counterintuitive on how to use paper to stop the production of carbon dioxide.

    Wasn’t true when you made this claim in your first sentence. Isn’t true now. Two opinions doesn’t qualify as counterintuitive.

    Paper production is sent to China to show how it can be recycled into boxes that can later be used to send toys and electronics back to America.

    Not exactly. Paper that isn’t recycled here might be sent to China to be converted to packaging for products that ship back to the US. But that doesn’t mean “paper production” is sent to China.

    Paper has helped create a Sisyphean trans-Pacific cycle.

    Interesting idea. Every time we send Chinese packaging back to China, they ship it back to us in a new form.

    This is not the best thing, but it does decrease the number of trees being cut down to create shipping containers.

    So, what is the PURPOSE of your Purposeful Summary, Ice? You’ve shared some details with us (and suppressed a lot of non-essential information), which is the essence of SUMMARY. But I can’t tell what it is you want to PERSUADE us to think or do. Is your point that we should never cut down trees for paper? Or that we should use something else for packaging? Or that we should recycle our own paper instead of spending MORE fossil fuels to ship it back and forth to China?

    Your Summaries should make an argument, develop a thesis, shape the original material to your advantage in persuading readers of something.

    Like

  2. davidbdale says:

    I’ve graded your assignment at Canvas, Iced. 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. 🙂

    Like

  3. icedcoffeeislife says:

    Thank you Professor! I’ll look over my work.

    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