My biggest concern with my paper was the insufficient background I gave for the sources. I definitely need to actually explain the article and ted talk instead of just dropping them in and assuming the reader has already read and analyzed the sources. Mackie liked the paragraph where I really let my own opinions shine through. She said “This entire paragraph is you summarizing your ideas while still pulling in aspects of both the texts. I really like this entire paragraph”. I think I need to work on using Dweck to be honest. I’ve only brought her in once and it was just to explain a fixed mindset so I think I need to further my use of her in my essay. Mackie agrees, saying “you are paraphrasing Dweck’s ideas here, her idea of “yet”. but here there is not a lot of detail on the yet. For me, I have read the text so I know what this yet is, but for someone who hasn’t this would confuse them. you haven’t given “yet” enough conversion and topic”. With Lukianoff/Haidt I definitely feel stronger about how I’ve used them. I think, again, I need to explain them a bit more so the reader understands my argument but overall I’m happy with how I’ve brought them in. I really think I just need to give more background for the texts seeing as I have provided essentially none. I will give better openers for context of the singular quotes as well so they don’t seem as just dropped in and its more fluid between quotes and my ideas. Overall, my perspective is that while trigger warnings have become a crutch for far too many people, we should not abolish them completely but rather we should find more compassion within ourselves instead of being selfish and believing that education comes before mental health.