I learned from Professor Stukenberg’s comment on my rough draft for Essay 4 that my introduction story of the fisher was in contrast to my final thesis. I just realized that I had not made an effort to address the story of the fisherman to my readers. This story completley disregards money as having much value in life and how the fisherman was completly happy without it. Also, from the activity done in class, I learned that I have included too much of “I say” in my paper and need to include about half and half with what “they say”. By using more information from what my sources say, this lets my readers know that they are reading information from credible sources in the field and not just from me. I also learned from my peer evaluations that my conclusion needs to make a lasting impression on the reader. One reviewer likes how I didn’t use many counterargument because he despises counterarguments. I prefer using this method. I can talk about what the other sides of my subject are and make my conclusion at the end with my reader knowing where I am coming from. By agreeing with both sides some way can also aid in seeming less biased in the question of if money really does make us happy.