Summaries- abcdefg577

1.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/econundrums-do-vitamin-supplements-work

It seems counterintuitive that multivitamins, touted for decades for their health benefits that aid a vitamin deficient nation, could actually pose a danger to our health. A multitude of scientific research is opening eyes to the unnecessary and risky nature of the supplements that line our shelves and medicine cabinets.

One study found that most Americans get their required vitamins and nutrients from their diets. Taking multivitamins after having already reached the optimum intake can have dangerous outcomes. Folic acid, which is found in many multivitamins, can lead to lesions that can result in colorectal cancers if consumed in excess. Since most Americans receive their daily folic acid from foods like cereals and bread, taking a supplement on top of it is overload. Seniors, who tend to take iron supplements, can have an increased risk of heart disease from the excessive iron. Health experts recommend that people should take multivitamins only under special circumstances: anorexics, children who are picky eaters, and vegans are of the select group.

When it comes to our health choices, it may be tempting to pop a multivitamin to ebb our fear of rickets or scurvy. However, recent research has shed light upon the dangers and uselessness of these pills. We generally get the nutrients we need from our food, and consuming multivitamins as an added measure may actually be detracting from our well-being.

2.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-04/vancouver-combats-heroin-giving-its-addicts-best-smack-world

It seems counterintuitive that the Canadian government would provide heroin addicts with free heroin, since as Americans we are so used to seeing drug abusers be persecuted and thrown in jail or cast out from society like lepers.

Being a port city, Vancouver is vulnerable to heroin importation by boat from the Pacific. In the beginning of their efforts to end this problem, the city implemented the use of suboxone and methadone for treating addicts. These two heroin alternatives are safer than the drug itself, and have proved successful in weaning some off of drugs entirely. More recently, Vancouver has switched from these alternatives to heroin itself for the worst cases. Doctors and nurses give out the necessary amount to the users and monitor them. This creates a safe environment for people who have gone down a dark path in life and are having trouble finding their way back.

In the United States, heroin is harshly penalized for possession, usage, and distribution. Admittedly, heroin dealers should not be allowed to illegally sell this deadly drug throughout the country. That said, people who end up addicted to heroin should not be vilified. Many start at a young age where they do not fully realize the ramifications it will have on their life. Charging them immense fines, throwing them in jail, and leaving them with a tainted record that can prevent them from assimilation back into society is a much more illogical idea than setting up a safe haven for these drug addicts.

Heroin is potentially deadly and can lead to a life of crime, but providing addicts with a safe and regulated place for them to indulge in their drug habits avoids these issues. If we adopt similar measures as Vancouver, our drug addicts could avoid overdosing, not feel forced into crime to get their fix, and decide for themselves when and if they are going to get clean.

3.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/lenders-vet-borrowers-social-media-facebook

It seems counterintuitive that someone would be denied a loan based off of the content on their social networking sites, but this practice is becoming reality.

Recent advice in our modern, technologically based world has warned that employers, college admissions officers, and the rest of the world can see and judge us on our online profiles. However, the claim that lending companies would deny us a loan based off of our digitally portrayed selves sounds ludicrous. Shockingly, this is all too true. LendUp, a San Francisco based company, is one of several companies carrying out these judgements. Applicants have been denied credit for being online friends with someone who was late paying a loan. People who have active social media lives are seen as stable by these companies. Even more shocking, there are no regulations in place to oversee these discriminatory practices. If these unchecked schemes by lending companies prove successful for business, it is speculated that banks may undertake the same type of online investigations.

The fact that people tailor their online profiles and portray skewed, unrealistic versions of themselves is evidence that these companies are basing decisions off of irrelevant information. Additionally, people could be Facebook friends with various members of their old high school class, having seen none of them in years. The fact that they could be denied credit because an old school chum failed to pay back a loan on time is nonsensical. Social media provides a very brief, one dimensional look into people’s lives and is filled with their own biases. It does not reflect their financial standings, trustworthiness, and ability to repay a loan. If this practice becomes the norm for lending companies, or even more frighteningly, banks, our best course of action may be to change our social media names to a disguising moniker or delete our online profiles altogether.  

This entry was posted in abcdefg577, E02: Purposeful Summaries. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Summaries- abcdefg577

  1. abcdefg577 says:

    feedback was requested.

    Feedback provided.
    —DSH

    Like

  2. davidbdale says:

    Vitamins
    This is a very strong opening, abcdefg. The combination of “touted for their health benefits” with “pose a danger to health” makes the counterintuitivity very clear. Then just two words, “unnecessary and risky,” makes two claims successfully, not only that vitamins can be dangerous, but that even when they’re not, they might not be helping much.
    —In P2, the good work continues. Specific dangers are paired with specific obvious and ordinary conditions: bread plus folic acid; iron in seniors plus heart disease.
    —In P3, you repeat too much, with only slight phrase variations, what you said in P1 and P2.
    : Opened eyes in P1 become light shed in P3.
    : Unnecessity and risk in P1 become uselessness and danger in P3.
    : A multitude of research in P1 becomes recent research in P3.
    : Americans get their vitamins from their diets in P2 becomes We get our nutrients from food in P3.
    : Taking vitamins after optimum intake in P2 becomes Consuming vitamins as an added measure in P3.
    Don’t get me wrong; the writing is good throughout, but the repetition so soon after the first claim will tire any reader quickly.

    Heroin.
    Very nice except that the contradiction could be clearer. In Vitamins, you made two strong claims in three words. Here, you neglect naming the ways heroin users are coddled that would make your contradiction clear. In America, we’re used to seeing addicts persecuted, jailed, or exiled. In Canada, addicts are: given heroin. Where are the opposites? Emphasize that the Canadian addicts are not persecuted but what? Treated? Supported? That they’re not jailed but what? At large? On their own recognizance? That they’re not exiled but what? Patients? Clients? Free agents?
    —In P2, you are distracted by the irrelevancy of the port city location. Instead you should be establishing the compassionate approach to care (vs the prosecutorial approach). A word or two in the sentence about methadone would do this. Successful weaning advances the idea. Where’s the compassion claim in “switching to heroin”? Give the necessary amount and monitor them are powerful positives. Can you do better? Creates a safe environment is nice. The overall effect of the paragraph is smart and sure. Work that back into an introduction that makes the addicts vulnerable instead of making the city vulnerable and you’ll make that pay off too.
    —In P3, heroin is not penalized. Possessors, not possession; users, not usage; distributors, not distribution, are all prosecuted harshly. See the difference?
    —In P3, your strong case is weakened by one word: leaving. Charging is strong; throwing is strong; leaving them with a record needs work.
    —In P4, you lose some moral high ground by permitting your sympathetic addicts to “indulge their habits” instead of treating their illness with the only available medication.
    —In P4, you again need to tighten up a series. Avoid overdosing is good; decide for themselves is positive; “not feel forced” is wimpy and negative where another strong positive is wanted.

    Facebook
    Please don’t say “based off of.” Loan denials are “based on” criteria, not based off of anything. Also, someONE can be denied based on HIS or HER criteria, not THEIR practices. To avoid this problem, stick with plurals: It seems counterintuitive that loan applicants should be denied funds based on their social network affiliations . . . .
    —In P2, advisers warn; advice does not.
    —Why quibble about whether the “claim” sounds ludicrous? You’ve established that the practice “is becoming reality.” Now you do it again: “all too true.”
    —Is there a connection between the first applicant (with the slow-pay associates) and the second (with the active social profile)?
    —Does it shock you that lenders engage in unregulated vetting of their loan applicants? What regulation could possibly deter their subjective judgments?
    —In P3, you first sentence gets it emphasis backwards. Start with a simple claim like: Our facebook pages are fictions.
    —I’m puzzled by the distinction between lending companies and banks. Why are they importantly different?

    You’re good, abcdefg. I’ve spent a lot of time on this relatively insignificant assignment because your overall strong work can be significantly improved and I trust in your ability to adjust. Are there useful insights and suggestions here? Reply, please.

    Like

    • abcdefg577 says:

      Thank you for the feedback. For the first one, I do see how I was repetitive in the latter half. I should have expanded more on the subject, not just rephrased my earlier statements in the last paragraph. The heroin summary definitely needs work. As you said, I should focus more on the users themselves and how they are treated, rather than comments like the one about port city location. Also, I’m glad I now know that “based off of” is wrong. I will work these suggestions into the paper and see if there’s anything else I can change.

      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