When the first draft was initially completed, I was most concerned that there was not enough background into the main ideas of the paper. I felt as though I had only explained my own points, without explaining the important information needed to understand a majority of the paper. My peers liked that my claims were generally very clear, and the way that I introduced and explained complicated concepts in just a few words. In my introduction, where I was briefly explaining the three sources that I would be examining, there was an example of this. Chloe emphasized that, “[she] really [liked] how [I] explained briefly how the three [topics] connect and highlight one another.” Chloe liked the section in which I described Gee’s main views and then lead immediately into describing how Delpit and Jordan related (Delpit disagrees with Gee, and Jordan serves as an example for the real-world). I seemed to have worked best with Gee in my second paragraph where I am describing my first claim. Liam even said that, “This is an effective quote because not only do you disagree with Gee but you also provide contextual proof that he somewhat contradicts himself.” Although I was disagreeing with Gee, I did so in a way that emphasized how his own beliefs were contradictory. However, it was also suggested that I delve deeper into the quotes that I used, and to also work to make the transition into the paragraph itself smoother. My best section with Jordan was in the third paragraph that was describing my second claim. The section leading up to Jordan’s main quote was describing that pioneers exist for a reason, as I went on to compare Jordan to a pioneer. Chloe commented that, “[she] absolutely [loved] this sentence and how it [built] up to the quote. [The] sentence alone explains the quote. [She] never really thought of it this way so it was like an epiphany.” The sentence that she described described how pioneers do not always exist in the primary Discourse but still have contributed a large historical amount, and how Gee’s viewpoint limits the minds of people that may become pioneers. One of the bigger things that needs to improve is the transition into different ideas. This can be done by integrating the ideas of the next paragraph into the end of the paragraph before. The introduction especially needs this attention, as the claims are never outright written before transitioning into the first claim. The introductions into quotes also need more background, to make it clear for those that haven’t read the papers. This leads the other big issue, which is the fact that some quotation evidence did not have a good synopsis afterwards. These are all good places to fix, and it was not nearly as much as I had imagined. My viewpoint extends into two main parts, which can be described as follows: Discourses are flexible and prone to change, therefore anyone should be allowed to enter whatever Discourse they so please. Any cost associated with entry into a dominant Discourse is far overshadowed by the possible gain, and therefore should not be the deciding factor in teaching Discourse.