Beginning Note; Completed the first summary, other two to come.
Prozac and Race
It seems counterintuitive that doctors are supposed to be helping all of their patients to get better, but are seemingly only helping their white patients. According to data and research, it was discovered that white patients were more likely to be prescribed Prozac over Black and Hispanic patients who are given the less reliable medicine. Doctors and researchers also took a look at the insurance and whether it tended to be white patients with private insurance or Black and Hispanic with Medicare/Medicaid.
While the majority of whites are being treated with Prozac for their depression, black and hispanic patients are given the not as helpful and suspect medicine compared to the better brand. Although this could be for a variety of reasons, including an issue with the patient’s insurance or a more prejudiced reason. The data shows that these groups are being provided less of what is needed for them to get help due to these mental illnesses. It is possible these doctors are unknowingly prejudiced, or even if they aren’t, their patients’ race seemingly takes a factor to which ‘brand is assigned.’
These patients should be able to get the same treatment for their depression, no matter what skin color, age, or origin. It’s a possibility some patients prefer name brand or generic over one another, but too many cases seem to become suspicious. Prozac is just one type of medicine given to patients as an antidepressant, but as shown there is an unequal and unfair distribution.
Is Walmart Organic and Local
It seems counterintuitive that the Walmart company claims to source organic and local products, yet the company only uses the “support local and organic” as an excuse to cut costs, as well as only supply from within the state. The “local” claim just means within the state, meaning it could be across the current state the specific store is in. The claim is also made within the article that Walmart also seeks validation for doing what should be done, to gain a better reputation.
Although all stores across America will be different, it seems that “Grown in USA” is the most ‘local” they will get and show. From produce to milk, most farm products, one by one started to go organic. While Walmart is a household name, the company aimed to flourish to become known for organic items. Over the past two decades or so they have set their goals to show their customers that they are trying to “better” to gain attraction and maximize profits. While Walmart serves over millions of customers, they try to maximize their profits by appealing to what consumers want, even if it is only a half truth.
KFC, Pizza Hut, Sphinx
It seems counterintuitive that there would be a very well-known fast-food chain next to a very historic landmark. The pyramids and the sphinx were built over 2000 years ago, so as it still stands today it has become a well-known tourist attraction. One could say that as we advance over the years these types of restaurants such as Pizza Hut and KFC will be created more and more. In relation as one is close to a tourist attraction, these chains are trying to maximize their profit as to how many people will come and visit the pyramids. Along with the hungry tourists who pass by as the chains are right there to serve them.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
duck
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
hollyp715
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
Just a quick note to acknowledge I’ve seen your Summaries. Insufferable feedback to follow.
You’re so right about the “Grown in the USA” sign, RH. You seem to be seeking and finding the moral and ethical shortcomings here, which I appreciate.
RushHour, I find the best way to proceed with feedback on these 3-part posts is to do a very detailed response to the first of the three entries and give you a chance to incorporate my advice into revisions for all three. I hope that works to your advantage and that you’ll take the opportunity to revise. Here goes.
—We can never assume our readers are familiar with our sources, RH. Therefore, “these doctors” has no meaning for our readers. Our job as the essay writer is always to provide our readers the background they need to understand our argument, and no more.
—As for what’s counterintuitive about the source material, you bet it would be counterintuitive for doctors not to want their patients to get better, but are you taking it for granted that “name-brand” Prozac is superior to the generic version?
—Here you don’t indicate what Black and Hispanic patients get, if anything. Are they prescribed something?
—Again, your readers are not informed. We don’t know who “they” are. And, maybe you’re setting up a claim, but we have no idea what might be relevant about “them” investigating what sort or coverage different ethnic groups might have.
—Does being given a “cheaper medicine” qualify as not being treated? You want to set up a comparison between treatment levels, but the one you specify seems to be “treated” or “given old medicine.” Surely you must mean “given the best and proven reliable medicine” or “given suspect medication.” But you don’t say that. Say that. If that’s what you mean.
—This is not a sentence. See the Citation Workshop for a discussion of Fragments. As you craft your legal sentence, be sure it makes a clear claim. What you mean here is that doctors aren’t necessarily prejudiced. They might be restrained by the limitations of a patient’s insurance coverage from prescribing name-brand medication. Say that as clearly as you can.
—Your conclusion appears to be that, whether the doctors are prejudiced or not, the end result is that Black and Hispanic patients don’t get name-brand Prozac as often as white patients do. You have two choices to make a clear claim about this: 1) “It’s hard to believe there’s no prejudice involved” or 2) “Even if they’re not prejudiced, doctors are acting as if race matters in the way they write prescriptions.” A Purposeful Summary takes a point of view. Are doctors blameless? Are they victims of a system? Or are the knowingly or unwittingly prejudiced?
—Here, your ethical judgement is on the record. SHOULD language always indicates an ethical judgement. Of course it includes the premise that name-brand Prozac is inherently superior to its generic substitute. I wonder if you’ve considered the possibility that while P and generic-P are medically identical, white patients will DEMAND the REAL P, while non-white patients aren’t suckers who think only the name brand will satisfy their needs.
—This is as close as you come to a clear and categorical ethical claim, RH. I admire its directness. Strive for this degree of straightforward and fearless claim-making.
I hope that was helpful.
This is a conversation.
If I don’t receive a response to this feedback, and especially if you don’t revise your Summaries, I’ll conclude that feedback is not valuable to you.
🙂 Talk to you soon!
I apologize for not replying sooner. Swamped with homework. I will be replying to this feedback very shortly(tonight). I also will be fixing all my assignments with feedback within the next few days.
No need to apologize, RH. I never want to make anyone feel guilty. The only reason I spell out the need to respond to feedback is to be clear about my own priorities and the nature of our transactions. I will continue to provide feedback for as long as our interactions are reciprocal. If ever the work seems more important to me than to my students, I back off and spend my energies elsewhere. I understand this is not everybody’s most important course (or most important this week).
This course is definitely important to me there has just been a lot going on. So, I totally understand your point. I just went through the feedback, and I just wanted to say I do appreciate it, I always am open to feedback as a writer to improve my work. I do appreciate how detailed you are, and all of this will be taken into consideration and changed accordingly. I will be working on changing and adjusting my work tomorrow but for now thank you.
It’s an honor to help, and I’m glad you’re receptive, RushHour. For the record, you weren’t negligent at all in responding. I left my feedback at 9:16pm. You apologized 4 minutes later for “not replying sooner.”
🙂
Haha no worries. I just saw it was edited and got an email. So, I assumed that you had posted before, and I missed it. I get emails for some comments and not for others.
I see improvements (not enough of them, but improvements) to your first Summary, RH. I think you can do better to clarify your argument by NOT LOOKING at your first version while you draft a second version. Consider that exercise. Read your original post (then look at the original source article again), then draft a Summary without referring to your original again. You’re too much in love with your first sentences. That’s natural; you worked on them and you hate to throw them away. But they’re getting in the way of a better second draft.