Lukeman Exercise Part Two / Karrie Gull

I did the exercise at the bottom of page 179. It said to count the number of sentences in my paragraphs, and what is the average? My typical short paragraph had anywhere from 3 sentences to 5 sentences. Then is said to go back and look at the individual paragraphs and see if any paragraphs significantly exceed or fall short of that length. And could i find a way to balance them out? What impact does this have on my work? I decided to choose a small section from one of the papers i am writing in another class. At this area of my paper my paragraphs are small and could do with some more content. I could be more broad.
Here is the Paragraphs to begin with:
Is one’s individual happiness worth the misery or hurt of another? In The Market Economy, it is appalling that someone would actually consider selling the health of their child for a color TV (499). It is very irrational. It’s selfish to inflict something so permanent in exchange for a momentary, short lived pleasure.
In a perfect world, all who knew the truth of Omelas would walk away and never take a second glance back. Though an individual’s answer would depend solely on what they find important, and what they would sacrifice to achieve a Utopian happiness.
Therefore a moral economy is based on goodness, fairness, and justice. It is not set up perfectly with one minor imperfection. A moral economy is fair and just to all who live within the economy’s borders. This may be a strict and overly general statement, but perhaps a certain place does not and will never exist. Given the choice the story provides, it would be far better to walk away into the unknown, then to partake of the inner turmoil daily and possibly eternally.
Here is what i changed:
Is one’s individual happiness worth the misery or hurt of another? In the poem The Market Economy, it is appalling that someone would actually consider selling the health of their child for a color TV (499). It is very irrational. It’s selfish to inflict something so permanent in exchange for a momentary, short lived pleasure. What is the price for happiness, this is the question that should influence a decision. Everyone is different and many would give up many things, that are different to another. What is irrational to me may not be irrational to the next person. Therefore it should be considered what a general Utopia would be defined as.
In a perfect world, all who knew the truth of Omelas would walk away and never take a second glance back. Though an individual’s answer would depend solely on what they find important, and what they would sacrifice to achieve a Utopian happiness. Hopefully it would not be at the pain of another human being. Many feel that if they do not feel pain, then the pain does not exist. This is not true, and it is not moral.
Therefore a moral economy is based on goodness, fairness, and justice. It is not set up perfectly with one minor imperfection. A moral economy is fair and just to all who live within the economy’s borders. This may be a strict and overly general statement, but perhaps a certain place does not and will never exist. Given the choice the story provides, it would be far better to walk away into the unknown, then to partake of the inner turmoil daily and possibly eternally.
(I don't know if i did this right, but i tried)