Summaries – JohnWick66

Why Keeping Girls Squeaky Clean Could Make Them Sick : Shots – Health News : NPR

It seems counterintuitive that girls are believed to be more likely to develop diseases as they grow older like asthma since they are considered “cleaner” as a complete gender. If you are looking at this argument from a one dimensional point it may seem like a reasonable thing to say , however if your not then you can blatantly see how the idea completely ignores several different factors like the race of the girls, location in which they grow up and their families wealth because each one can impact the girls interactions with the environment heavily . At the end of the day a city girl is going to act very different in terms of to getting dirty(in the sense of the article) than a country girl and the same thing can be applied to boys as well. So to group all girls together and say that girls in general are more likely to develop sickness later due to early childhood cleanliness is ridiculous.

Prozac: What’s Race Got to Do With It? – Mother Jones

It seems counterintuitive that their is believed to be some form of discrimination between people receiving anti depressant medication due to a prescription gap between whites and minorities. This is based on a study conducted in 2008 were it was found that roughly 11 percent of white American patients being treated for depression were prescribed medication while only 4 % of black and Hispanic American patients were prescribed meds for the same conditions. Which when you first hear this stat it does sound unfair until you realize something. In the study they didn’t publish the actual number of patients being treated for depression, but rather they only released the percentages of those groups that actually received medication for depression, meaning that the actual populations of people receiving treatment could be extremely distant from one another making that percentage pointless. Especially when you consider that both Blacks and Hispanics are minority groups(32% of the population) in America when compared to Whites(around 61% ), meaning that they are likely in a much lower demand for these antidepressants than White people due simply to population size differences.

Vancouver combats its heroin problem by giving heroin addicts the best smack in the world (pri.org)

It seems counterintuitive that Vancouver is trying to fix their heroin problem by feeding the addicts some of the best heroin money can buy. Its not even a program to help these addicts quite but rather one that basically promises these addicts free heroin everyday. As of today their are 26 people in this program, and the people in it are the hardcore addicts you aren’t even attempting to get clean or takes alternatives. Vancouver is using taxpayers money to continue to fuel these people addiction in order to as the city views it” keep them docile and keep the sort of demons of heroin addiction at bay…” It’s astonishing that rather than use the tax money to put these addicts through any kind of treatment to at least try to get them clean, they would rather just supply them with more. Which will down the road only influence other Vancouver addicts to simply continue their addiction since there are one, no repercussions to it and two they are getting supplied heroin from the government itself.

May I please get some feedback on this. To be honest I’m not entirely sure I did this right.

thanks

This entry was posted in johnwick66, Purposeful Summaries. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Summaries – JohnWick66

  1. davidbdale says:

    There’s a category for Feedback Please, John Wick, just like the categories for Purposeful Summaries and for johnwick66. You don’t have to write a request (which I am not certain to see). Just put your work into the Feedback Please category when you post it (or after any significant revisions).

    Like

  2. davidbdale says:

    It seems counterintuitive that girls are believed to be more likely to develop diseases as they grow older like asthma since they are considered “cleaner” as a complete gender. If you are looking at this argument from a one dimensional point it may seem like a reasonable thing to say , however if your not then you can blatantly see how the idea completely ignores several different factors like the race of the girls, location in which they grow up and their families wealth because each one can impact the girls interactions with the environment heavily . At the end of the day a city girl is going to act very different in terms of to getting dirty(in the sense of the article) than a country girl and the same thing can be applied to boys as well. So to group all girls together and say that girls in general are more likely to develop sickness later due to early childhood cleanliness is ridiculous.

    Yeah, you pretty much missed the entire point of the exercise on this entry, John Wick. Your paragraph is PURPOSEFUL. Apparently, your purpose is to debunk the theory of the author of the study or experiment into girls and their health. But your paragraph is in no way a SUMMARY of the original article. So, you’re half right / half wrong.

    You do a better job of summarizing in your Vancouver paragraph.

    Maybe I can explain. This is not a time-wasting irrelevant exercise. It’s designed to help you make the best and most economical use of your sources to support your thesis. You could waste time summarizing the entire content of an academic paper for the sake of the one paragraph that applies to your own theory . . . OR, you could ignore everything that doesn’t apply . . . AND you could summarize the pertinent material IN A WAY THAT highlights the support it offers to your argument. That’s a PURPOSEFUL SUMMARY.

    Your Vancouver entry does a pretty good job of that. The first half of it anyway. The last half you do some wild surmising about the likely effects of the program that go way beyond summary. But to your credit you describe the program, you point out that tax dollars fund it, you identify the beneficiaries . . . all of those go to summary. And you make your own point of view clear. That goes to purpose.

    That should help you revise these entries if you choose to.

    Like

  3. davidbdale says:

    Next, let’s take a close look at your language use, grammar and punctuation. Most of your sentences won’t survive to the next draft of a thorough rewrite, but if they did survive, they’d need corrections.

    It seems counterintuitive that girls are believed to be more likely to develop diseases as they grow older like asthma since they are considered “cleaner” as a complete gender.

    —It’s hard to tell what’s counterintuitive in your claim here, John Wick, because you add the extra layer of what “is believed” and “is considered.” It wouldn’t be counterintuitive for people to BELIEVE that small dogs eat more than big dogs, but it WOULD BE counterintuitive if small dogs REALLY DID eat more than big dogs. Get it?
    —So a better version of your sentence would be “It seems counterintuitive that girls are more likely to develop asthma as they grow older when, as a gender, they practice better hygiene than boys.”

    If you are looking at this argument from a one dimensional point it may seem like a reasonable thing to say , however if your not then you can blatantly see how the idea completely ignores several different factors like the race of the girls, location in which they grow up and their families wealth because each one can impact the girls interactions with the environment heavily .

    —WAAYYY too many qualifiers here, John Wick. (from a one-dimensional point of view) (seem reasonable) (blatantly) (completely) (heavily).
    —You’re (you are) not your.
    —the girls’ interactions, not the girls interactions (the interactions of the girls are the girls’ interactions).
    —We don’t use the second person in this class (no You, Your, Yours, Yourself, Yourselves).
    —Better version: From one perspective, it may seem reasonable, but the theory ignores the race of the girls, where they were raised, family income, and other factors that affect their interactions with the environment.

    At the end of the day a city girl is going to act very different in terms of to getting dirty (in the sense of the article) than a country girl and the same thing can be applied to boys as well.

    —Again, trim the language.
    —Edited: Regarding dirt, city girls are probably as different from country girls as they are from city boys.

    So to group all girls together and say that girls in general are more likely to develop sickness later due to early childhood cleanliness is ridiculous.

    —Edited: So it’s inaccurate to claim that girls as a group are more likely to develop adult illnesses due to early childhood cleanliness.

    Like

  4. davidbdale says:

    I hope that was helpful, John Wick. I’ve graded your assignment at Canvas. 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

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