[Rebekah Coleman]

Read the piece “Analysis: Satel vs. The Kidney Foundation: Should Kidney Donors Be Compensated.” It is located here: https://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu/colemaneng1121d430spring2020/files/2020/03/Analysis-Satel-vs-Kidney-Foundation.pdf

Write a brief response to the following questions (you do not have to respond to the other question in the document!):
1. What do you notice about how Gomez compares the two different sources on one topic?
2. What did you learn from this piece? How could you apply it to your own writing?

Please try to respond to each other’s comments, when possible!

[Anthony Regner (A278+π)]

1. I have noticed that when Gomez compared two different sources on one topic, Gomez has analyzed both of their arguments as Gomez interpreted quotes from both sources using her own language. I have also noticed that both arguments are in opposing sides regarding whatever kidney donors should be compensated.

2. What I learned about this piece is while NKF is opposed of donors receiving compensation, because of immorality, while Satel supports donors receiving compensation, because it is noble enough to save a human’s life. In the beginning of the piece, due to the context, Gomez was allowed to self-plagiarize by recycling her own ideas/words. I could apply (the way that Gomez analyzes pieces) this to my own writing just like I am doing to my annotated bibliography .

[yanuela abreu]

1. I have noticed that Gomez compared the two different articles and analyzes the two articles by giving quotes regarding the kidney transplant. I also noticed that the articles are arguing whether or not to compensate kidney donors.

2. I learned that the National Kidney Foundation, “emphatically endorses the current altruistic system” while Satel says that policy is failing because it is an “altruism-only system.” I would apply it to my own writing by using the same way of how she analyzes the articles.

[Justin Guillen]

1. Gomez compared the two different sources as being “diametrically opposed”. This means that both articles are on opposite sides of the topic of organ donations. Also, Gomez used to quotes to show the arguing between. An example is in paragraph 7 when both Satel and the NKF argue over their views of morality.

2. Gomez’s piece showed me different writing methods to apply other articles into his own writing. Gomez cleared compared two different sides of the topic by using quotes and explaining differences in both pieces. These are the methods I need to apply to my annotated bibliography.

[Gianluca Alioto]

1. When comparing the two different sources Gomez Compares the underlying values driving both the NFK and the Sally Satels op-ed. She goes into stating the different statements from both companies and said that NFK’s is ” Finacial Incentives for Organ Donation” and Satels being ” When Altruism Isn’t Moral.” This meams that both Organizations have different views, As Justin said in his response He said that Gomez compared the aritcles as being “diametrically opposed” and I agree with what he said about them both being seperate articles on opposite sides of organ donations. What I understood by reading this is that many people have different opinions and viewpoints on Organ transplant and this is just an underlying example of the many differences between some companies.

2. One thing that I learned about this piece is the different viewpoints and opinions on 2 totaly opposite but same organ donation organizations. When comparing the Stats Gomez does an execellent job at breaking down both companies and goes into stating the exact facts about for example how many organs are donated every year as well with the amount of deaths that take p]leace each and every day. I learned a way of comparing articles and opinons which can help me better my writing for future essays.

[Daniel Espinoza]

1. Gomez was using the two different sources to compare and analyze despite both being different about organ, kidney donors. The article was arguing whether donors should be compensated when donating organs such as the kidney. Also, both sources were used to discuss the bad and good of the Satel’s and NFK’s perspective of the situation.

2. Gomez breaks down each source into precision detail which is pristine. It is a little difficult for me to break down sources into detail especially when the sources are different but Gomez executes it well. Gomez has taught me a new strategy that can help me with writing in the future and now. I could definitely use Gomez’s writing piece as an example and model for my annotated bibliography.

[Josh Clarke]

1. Throughout my reading of the article, I noticed that Gomez uses two different sources to compare the NFK and the Satels. Gomez’s article was a used as a platform to argue whether or not donors should be compensated. Both the NFK and Satels have two different opinions on this topic.

2. In this article I learned that people may find compensation for organ donations is immoral. Before this article, I never knew that it was such a topic as well as a thing. The article has now given me knowledge on something new.

[Florence Jiang]

1. What I noticed about how Gomez compares the two different sources on one topic is by quoting specific words and phrases from both sources that will impact to readers. Because both sources argue in two different viewpoint, when Gomez quote from one source she backs it up with the opposing source right after.

2. What I learned from this piece is that words and small phrases can be a great impact. Also using two sources with different viewpoints can help with writing your claim and maybe it can help with finding a solution.

[Arnelle Martinson]

1. After reading the “Analysis: Satel vs. The Kidney Foundation: Should Kidney Donors Be Compensated”, i have realized that the author Gomez makes a comparison between two different sources about The NFK and The Satels. These two foundations are having a disagreement about kidney donors being reimbursed.

2. Based on this article, I learned that you can used two different sides and opinions that may disagree to back up your claim. When you use to different opinions it can help your writing to have more of a backbone to explain to readers how there can be a way to fix a situation.

[Sahesha]

1. While reading “Analysis: Satel vs. The Kidney Foundation: Should Kidney Donors Be Compensated” where Gomez compares how two different sources opinion on kidney donors, I realized that Gomez quotes specific phrases to avoid plagarism and when writing about both sides of the argument of ” Should kidney donors be compensated” she made sure both argument made an impact on the readers.

2. Before reading this article I didn’t know that organ donors who want to be compensated were considered immoral. Also I learned better ways I can quote sources that I use for my writing assignments.

[Ray-Ana W.]

1. I agree with everything said, as Gomez compare the articles she is able to break them down and completely analyze them. By doing this she allows the audience to fully grasp and understanding despite them being on two different spectrums about kidney donors. Also when she uses quotes it helps to emphasize both the good and the bad parts of it.
2. In this article, I learned that I don’t think giving money to donors id immoral. Sometimes people don’t have options and the donating and making money off of it can be their only option. Moreover, in my writing, I have an example and now can learn to write an efficient compare essay.