1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.
-Coats was fired for violating workplace policy and not for his use of prescribed marijuana.
2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.
-Under the correct medication, a person with anxiety can not be fired by their employer.
3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.
-In Colorado, the use of alcohol and marijuana is legal so employees cannot be penalized for using either outside work hours.
4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.
-Coats was wrongfully fired due to his attempts to treat his tremendous pain.
5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.
-Sadly, Coats received discrimination because he used marijuana medicinally.
6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.
-Coats exclusively kept his use of marijuana separate from work.
7. Omar Gonzalez didn’t penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.
-Secret Service Agents captured Omar Gonzalez not long after he got into the White House.
8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.
-While the questions of how the breach occurred arose, the Secret Service’s actions were excused.
9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though.
-Julia Pierson’s incompetence is more likely to get her fired than her testimony before Congress yesterday.
10. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.
-The use of deadly force against the intruder was unneeded as he was only carrying a small knife.
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 
1. Perfect
2. Brilliant. However, it’s one word: cannot
3. Brilliant
4. I love your “wrongfully.” It makes a claim in one word: This was done and it shouldn’t have been done.
This may be personal, but I hate “due to,” which can often be misused. How about: “Coats was wrongfully fired for treating his tremendous pain”?
5. The “because” here still seems causal because we can’t tell whether the injustice was for use or for medicinal use. How about: “Because his use was medicinal, the treatment Coats received was discriminatory”?
6. Beautiful, but you probably don’t need the “exclusively.”
7. Love it.
8. Love it.
9. I’m very impressed with this correction, Mocha, . . . AND . . .
These “more likely than” constructions are tricky. After reading “more likely to get her fired than,” readers expect “than some other sort of consequence,” such as, “is more likely to see her fired than promoted.”
How about: “More than her testimony before Congress yesterday, Julia Pierson’s incompetence is likely to get her fired”?
10. Very nice, although your “only” is out of place. Does it mean “only carrying, not wielding”?