‘Hidden’ Species May Be Surprisingly Common
While looking around outside, one may spot two birds that seem to have the same coloring and size, concluding those are two birds of the same species. With new advancements in DNA sequencing technology, this may not be the case. Cryptic species are animals that appear to be of the same species due to physical appearance, but are in fact two complete separate non-interbreeding species, therefore the two birds once spotted and thought to be the same species may be in fact, two completely separate species. Identifying new species is a chance for evolutionists and biologists to conserve many species that can be already be endangered. This is a huge undertaking, however. Obviously, different species have different genetic DNA and different needs in order to survive, and by identifying the species early, there is more of a chance to save the species from extinction.
Do Toms Shoes Really Help People?
There are many advertisements that promote “buy one- give one”, meaning if, for example, a pair of shoes is bought, another pair of shoes will be donated to a person in need. The shoe company, Toms, is one such company that is well known for this type of campaign. However, is this type of aid actually benefitting the people Toms is trying to help? In an article in The New York Times reported that the children Toms is giving shoes to are already receiving shoes from the schools they attend. There is also another issue of “marketplace competition.” Instead of working with the people so they can make their own shoes, they are simply leaving the shoes to the people. While donating shoes is a worthy feat for a company, there could be more that Toms can do. Working with the people to create their own market would benefit the community even more than Toms’s current promotion.
Doctors Who See Poorer Patients Get Poorer Performance Ratings
Those surveys that insurance companies ask its policy holders to fill out are vital in insurance companies ratings of their doctors. Recently, insurance companies have found that doctors who give care to people of lower socioeconomic class receive poorer ratings. Insurers and Medicare want to link the performance of doctors to their salaries. However, if doctors want to maximize their pay, they will want to care for people of higher socioeconomic classes, who seem to give higher ratings, therefore taking in patients who have lower incomes. There are many questions that are being asked as to why doctors, in the same practice group, are receiving lower scores. By understanding these discrepancies, health providers will be able to act a certain way to the various types of people they serve.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
You didn’t ask for feedback on this assignment, Taylor, but since we’re conferencing this afternoon, I’ll comment on it in advance to save time.
Hidden Species
Taylor, I apologize in advance if detailed language critiques bother you, but I want you to simplify your sentences to avoid problems. Always start with subjects and verbs.
Your sentence: One (while looking) may spot (concluding).
The “spot” happens while one is looking, but when does the concluding happen?
The simple fix is: While looking around outside, one may spot two birds that seem to have the same coloring and size, and conclude that those are two birds of the same species.
Or you could simplify by substituting we (always a good idea) and eliminating what is understood:
We may spot two birds outside with similar coloring and size and conclude that they are of the same species.
Or you could simplify further by eliminating a person altogether:
Two birds with similar coloring and size are often of different species.
Your second sentence illustrates why clear simplicity is helpful. You say: With new advancements in DNA sequencing technology, this may not be the case.
It’s unclear what is not the case. Is it “not the case” that we conclude the birds share a species? Or is it “not the case” that they are of the same species?
Whichever you mean, your claim that “With new advancements in DNA sequencing” something has changed can’t apply to either. Advancements in sequencing make it clear that similar birds can be from different species. That’s true. But the advancements don’t make the birds be from different species.
I can see that this might be confusing. Let me show you alternatives.
1. Looking out my window I saw two red birds of the same size and concluded they were eastern cardinals, but new advances in DNA sequencing might easily prove I was looking at birds of different species that can’t interbreed.
2. What appear to be cardinals of the same species might not be, according to advancements in DNA sequencing.
3. The author of “‘Hidden’ Species May Be Surprisingly Common” assures us that, based on new DNA sequencing analysis, cardinals that look alike may actually belong to completely separate, non-interbreeding species.
Toms Shoes
Suppose instead of first identifying a type of company and offer, and then telling us that Toms is such a company, you combined the two (and the one that follows) into a simpler sentence:
Toms Shoes, which donates a pair of shoes to someone in need for every pair it sells—and other companies that use the “buy one, give one” approach—may not be benefiting the recipients much.
Doctor Ratings
I understand most of your summary, Taylor, but remember, to be purposeful, it must be employed to promote an argument. Your early sentences make an important observation, but you abandon the argument and end with words that mean very little:
There are many questions that are being asked as to why doctors, in the same practice group, are receiving lower scores. By understanding these discrepancies, health providers will be able to act a certain way to the various types of people they serve.
One thing they might mean is:
Many health care experts dispute the conclusion that doctors who receive lower ratings are providing less competent care. It is clearly unfair to reduce the salaries of doctors who are willing, or who are forced, to provide healthcare to populations that give lower grades to all doctors.
You may certainly revise this assignment if you’re interested in clarifying your ideas and improving your grade.
—Watch