It seems counterintuitive for photographers to capture images of a lifeless body in order to gain more popularity.
After a devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 19th, 2010, countless lives were lost, leaving many survivors to be homeless and in deep distress over the widespread destruction. Among the wreckage, photographers arrived to document the destruction the earthquake caused. While capturing this, they captured images of one particularly haunting scene: the lifeless body of Fabienne Charisma. Fabienne Charisma was a 15 year old girl that was a survivor of the earthquake, who tragically lost her life after being struck by a stray bullet during the looting that followed. Once Fabienne was tragically killed, the photographers shifted their focus from fallen buildings to her lifeless body. Their photos of the slain girl won photojournalism prizes, while their pictures of the earthquake’s devastation went unnoticed.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
The first thing I noticed about your post, Taco, before I had read it all, was the odd use of the phrase “led to.” Now that I’ve read it through, I see you used the phrase three times, and not particularly well.
Your post is solid enough, but I hope you’ll entertain the idea of revising it for a grade improvement. Let’s look at a few spots that could be better.
—You’re wasting crucial claims on readers who are not prepared to understand them, Taco. Your readers have no idea who Fabienne is until you tell them. They don’t know why photographers are on the scene of Fabienne’s lifeless body. They don’t even know for sure whether the photographers captured FABIENNE’S BODY or captured IMAGES OF Fabienne’s body.
—In short, you have to give readers the background BEFORE or WHILE you’re making your claims. Otherwise, they can’t follow your reasoning.
—The first “led to” is really odd. You appear to be saying that “Fabienne led to being a prized possession.” Or: Fabienne caused herself to be a prize.
—This is better. But you place the emphasis on the survivors who were distraught over all the death. You should maybe lead with all the dead, and then mention that the survivors were left homeless (for example) as a way to be specific about “all the damages that occurred.”
—It’s odd to refer to a natural disaster as an “accident.”
—As for the second “led to,” it seems to say that photographers coming to Haiti “caused them” to photograph Fabienne. Maybe it was their lust for fame that led them to flock around her; it wasn’t their arrival that did it.
—Did you invent this anecdote, Taco? I don’t remember any source claiming that Fabienne was an innocent victim who was NOT carrying looted merchandise, framed pictures, not her own.
—If you trust the details, you can use them in your summary, of course, but they’re new to me.
Important Style Note: If the “it” you’re referring to is Fabienne’s tragic death, then you don’t need the “it” at all and should avoid it. Like this:
Fabienne’s tragic death shifted the focus of the photographs taking pictures of the rubble and instead focused on her.
Now let’s work on THAT sentence.
Once Fabienne was tragically killed, the photographers shifted their focus from fallen buildings to her lifeless body.
Your final “led to” is also odd. I’m going to advise you never to use the phrase again. 🙂
Let’s try this:
Their photos of the slain girl won photojournalism prizes, while their pictures of the earthquake’s devastation went unnoticed.
Your first draft won’t score very well, Taco, but this course emphasizes the importance of revision, so please take another crack at it. I’ll grade this version as is for the time being.
Put the post into Grade Please or back into Feedback Please following any significant improvements.
Well, I’m flattered that you used my sentences.
Regraded.