Summary 1
Do multivitamins really work
It seems counterintuitive that the multivitamins we thought makes us healthier actually put us at risk for diseases. A study of postmenopausal women was done in 2009 and it showed that multivitamins didn’t protect them from the disease that where studied, which were heart disease, lung, breast, and colon cancer. Another study was done 3years later and ended up with similar conclusions. Not only does it put you at risk for diseases, but it is also a waste of your money.
An oft-cited study concluded that regular vitamin users are more likely than non-users to get their quota from the foods they eat. This may cause many people to exceed the recommended daily limit of certain vitamins and minerals which could be dangerous. For example, a pregnant woman who takes standard multis containing the retinol form of vitamin A can increase the risk of birth defects. The food and drug administration’s do not regulate the labeling of supplements. A law was then passed that forced manufactures to put a warning label on supplements that could cause health risks, the industry opposed it. They believe in the safety of their products. The need to take vitamins every day is not necessary, we can get adequate nutrient intake from what we are eating.
Summary 2
The Daily Shower Can Be a Killer
It seems counterintuitive how showering, something you do every day, can put you at a big risk of getting hurt or even worse. For elderly people, falling is a common death. Their quota is 15 more years of life, which means they have 5,745 more showers left when showering every day. That gives them the risk of falling in the shower 1 in 1,000 chance. A study was done that compared Americans’ perceived ranking of dangers with the rankings of real danger. It was concluded that we exaggerate the risk beyond our control and we underestimate the risks we can control. We believe that the risks we underestimate could never happen to us, but they can no matter how careful you are.
Summary 3
Elderly Animals
It seems counterintuitive that older animals’ emotions seen in animals can be photographed while the emotions we humans experience are not to be photographed. The photographer Isa wanted to capture the animals in their natural state of emotions, she didn’t want to capture their sentimentality because it felt disrespectful. She decided not to take pictures of her parents who were older, and one had Alzheimer’s disease. A year after she discovered petey (an old horse) she was mesmerized and fell in love with him and stayed the whole day and took pictures. This is how the whole project started. The pictures she takes are given to the caregivers and they find comfort in them, mostly when the animal has passed. Not only did the pictures help the caregivers, it also helped Isa, to her this was her way of coping with her family and not being able to take pictures of them.
Counterintuitive 
If you’re up for it, I can help you with your writing in several ways, PinkPineapple. The process may be painful, but you’re paying me to assist you. 🙂
Let’s concentrate on your first summary.
It bears the evidence of a summary that was written by looking at the article all the way through while writing. It addresses the material in the order it occurs in the article, whether that material is relevant to your argument or not.
You’ve correctly decided on a primary argument and identified it in your first sentence. Multivitamins put us at risk for disease. Whatever else you say in the two paragraphs you’ve budgeted should contribute to this clear claim.
Your first paragraph is strong all the way through until the last sentence, which states an irrelevancy. The cost of the vitamins in not part of your argument, unless you’re making two arguments, but you promised only one.
You shift again from cost to the claim that multis are unnecessary and that taking them can lead to over-dosing, a health claim not a cost claim. Your evidence of birth defects is very strong (but not for cost). The labeling evidence is completely irrelevant too, and interrupts your argument completely. You draw the right conclusion in your final sentence, but it sounds like a non-sequitur after what precedes it, and it concludes something other than what you promised to prove: that multis are dangerous.
A stripped-down version of your argument would eliminate everything but the risk evidence. Here it is with the extra stuff cut out:
Is this enough for a Purposeful Summary? Sure. It contains two important and closely-related arguments. That multis are unnecessary, and that they can actually be harmful.
Notice I’ve revised several of your sentences to remove wordiness. I hope you’ll find those comparisons helpful for your next writing session.
Now. Could you include the observations you made in your first draft without distracting from your new, streamlined argument? Let’s see.
—You wanted to say that vitamins are a waste of money.
—You also wanted to observe that manufacturers don’t label their products for their customers’ benefits.
—And you wanted to chastise the government for not forcing them to do so.
These are valid claims that could easily find a place in your paragraph. Can we do so with just a few words that don’t interrupt your flow?
I admit squeezing all that argument into a few sentences was complicated. I have years of practice. But I offer it as a model of how much we can accomplish with a few words. The first step, though, is to break away from the original source.
I’d love to hear your response, PinkPineapple. Would you appreciate (or be more likely to resist) this amount and degree of criticism on future assignments?
LikeLike