It seems counterintuitive that a company’s motto of “buy one, give one” would cause more problems than solutions. The company “Tom’s”, known for their slip on shoes, became very well known for donating a pair of shoes to someone in an underprivileged country.
According to those who live in Haiti, they do not want people’s used shoes. They say that there are many other things that could be of much more use, yet companies continue dumping off goods that may not go to use. An alternative may be taking an approach like “Two Degrees Food” does. They collaborate with food manufacturers locally in the different countries to help provide them with the food they need. This is both cost effective and productive because everything is going to good use.
While “Tom’s” intentions are definitely there, the outcome should be much more effective than it is. The process of them fulfilling their motto and providing the shoes to those who need it needs to be much more clear and potentially revised.
It seems counterintuitive that multivitamins can actually be harmful to people. All your life, you hear doctors, parents, guardians preaching about the importance of taking daily vitamins. So, why is it that some of those vitamins can actually harm rather than help?
Science has proven that many companies have lied about the amounts of the actual vitamins that are found in their products. Companies have doubled the amount suggested for their targeted customers. How are people supposed to trust those companies after reading this? Multivitamins have been suggested for those who are either picky eaters or struggle with an eating disorder, not your everyday person. So, it is important to read and comprehend the vitamins you are putting into your body each and every day.
It seems counterintuitive that you could have the life of another in the palm of your hands. Throughout life, many people take for granted all that they have. Not many stop to appreciate and reflect on what is around them until it is gone. Is it wrong to take someone off of a breathing tube if they are suffering? Will you live to regret that or will you be happy with your decision?
There is always the thought of what if. What if something goes right, or what if it goes wrong. Is it worth putting the ones you love so much through a surgery, procedure, or another way to fight their battles? All of your life, you never expect to be put in these situations and then suddenly, someone’s life is based on your decisions. How do you prepare for that and what if it was you? This definitely provokes many questions and can result in an appreciation for life, health, and the people around you.
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 
Thanks for posting early, Coffee. I always appreciate students who post a draft while others are working on theirs so I can offer feedback and everyone can benefit from my early reactions.
TOMS SHOES
First Paragraph. I think you mean the company is well known for donating ONE PAIR of shoes to someone in an underprivileged country FOR EVERY PAIR OF SHOES SOLD. The way you phrased it, readers will think Toms donated only one pair of shoes.
Second Paragraph. I don’t know if the people of Haiti misunderstood (or you did), but the donated shoes are new. The people may have preferences for what they are given, but they’re wrong if they think the shoes are used. You can certainly fault Toms for “dumping off goods that may not go to use” but you might want to somehow indicate whether that is your perception or the belief of the recipients. This paragraph in another place gives us a clear indication of your preference: “collaborate with [local] manufacturers to provide [needed goods].”
Third Paragraph. You may certainly advise Toms to do more effective philanthropy, but I don’t think you can fault their clarity. Instead of saying, “A portion of our profits is donated to the poor,” which doesn’t inspire ANY confidence in consumers, the clear practice of giving away a pair of shoes for every pair sold is super-clear.
Summary: All that said, you did fairly effectively both Summarize the article and put the material to a Purpose, Coffee, so that’s the main thing. You and I don’t have to agree on Toms.
MULTIVITAMINS ARE HARMFUL
First Paragraph. Strong and direct. That’s two things good writers do. (As the semester progresses, I’ll break you of the habit of using 2nd-person language, “you” in this case. I’ll also discourage you from using rhetorical questions. But those refinements will come later.) For now, try to clarify your language in the last sentence. You don’t really want to know why vitamins can harm their users. You want to know why their makers are allowed to sell them! Am I right? And why people would take them.
Second Paragraph. It’s good that you’re going directly at the problem with facts, but your claims are not quite clear, Coffee. You say:
We can read this two ways. Either the companies are packing twice as much vitamin into each pill as they say, OR they’re recommending that some consumers take twice as much as the actual “recommended” dose. Which one is it?
Third Paragraph. This should be its own paragraph:
It could benefit from a sentence or two of development, but the advice that many people DON’T NEED vitamin supplements at all (or could be harmed by them) is a VERY DIFFERENT claim from the one that vitamin packagers are not transparent about doses.
EUTHANASIA.
First Paragraph. Coffee, I can’t tell what article you’re summarizing here. There should enough references to the original that readers can at least tell what (and/or who) you’re responding to.
Second Paragraph. This is thoughtful and poignant, Coffee. You don’t appear to be advocating for euthanasia or against euthanasia, so I’m unsure what is the Purpose of your Purposeful Summary. Maybe you could tweak the work a bit to take a side.
Summary. You’ve written 11 sentences for the Euthanasia summary, Coffee. Four of the eleven are Rhetorical Questions. It’s too early to insist that you eliminate this device you love entirely, but 4/11 is too many. It doesn’t leave you enough chances to make bold, positive claims of your own. And it gives your reader too much power to decide what you mean.
OVERALL REACTIONS.
First, I apologize that you had to take the brunt of a whole bunch of reactions right out of the gate, but that is the hazard of the early poster. You’ve done credible work, and you’ve shown sensitivity in addressing all your topics.
You’re not obligated to revise, but I hope you’ll take the opportunity to do so. If you choose to edit your work, just find and click the tiny Edit link below the “Share this post” buttons at the bottom of your post and Update when you’re finished.