This was another instance where I added more specific evidence to strengthen my paper. None of this was included in my first draft, and looking back I do not see how I could have left it out. I did not have to ask my friends about anything for this information, because this had happened to me a lot before. As a result, when I originally stated that a bettor forgets the possibility of a disadvantage, I already knew that this was true. So why didn't I include this evidence? It makes so much sense and provides a great example of what I was discussing. I do not know why I didn't include it initially, but I added it here. Once again, this evidence allows the reader to see that I know what I am talking about. It doesn't leave the reader wondering if I am just making this up as I go along because I am making claims with no evidence

This is where I fixed one of the biggest mistakes in my essay. I took out the part about Bergler saying that gamblers have "an unconscious wish to lose." Looking back, I realized that I only included this because it was a new idea that I found interesting. I had no intention on elaborating on it further, and I only mentioned it one other time in my essay. Although it was interesting, it did not add anything to the essay. This was definitely confusing for the reader because I presented a claim and did nothing else with it. Taking this out of my essay made this paragraph much clearer and did not leave the reader asking questions about why I included this.

In this part of my essay, I added more clarification to a point I made in my first draft. I originally only stated that Congress could set up a regulatory system, but did not briefly explain what that would do. This is an example of my struggle with lack of specificity. In this draft I made sure that the reader knew exactly what this would allow congress to do, which made this point stronger in my essay.

Right at the beginning of my essay I started to include more information about gambling in my own life, instead of just talking about it in general. This introduction is much more personal, so it shows the reader why I am interested in researching this topic. I also set the tone for the entire essay by stating my position on gambling, which tells the reader that even though I am interested in sports betting, I do not actually partake in it. This shows a level of skepticism. I also originally had my question at the end of this paragraph, even though it did not flow well. I was using the high school technique of putting the "thesis" at the end of the first paragraph, but I decided that it sounded much better in the second paragraph.

Here I was able to add an example of my own personal experience with betting, instead of relying on my friends' experiences. When I made the claim that "the marketing strategy [is] effective in bringing in and retaining gamblers" I again failed to explain how I knew that this was true. This is why I added this quick, but powerful example. I am strongly opposed to sports betting (except betting very small amounts on fantasy football), especially daily or weekly sports betting. So stating that these advertisements were even tempting to someone like me made it very clear how enticing these ads can be. This supports my earlier claim about ads bringing in new gamblers. Once again, the reader now knows that I am not basing my claims off of nothing. I have had actual experiences with these ads.

In this part of my essay, I added much more clarity and information that I obtained from my life. In my original essay, I assumed that people are excited when watching a game that they have bet money on, even though I am not. I had no concrete proof of this. So I asked my friends again about their gambling habits, this time about how they feel when watching a game that they gambled on. Once again, I found my assumption to be true, and I was able to add specific evidence to support my claim. This made my paper much stronger. Even though I knew that my assumptions were likely true, they did not mean anything without actual evidence. In this part of my essay, I also edited the statement "the thrill of watching the game sticks with them," which originally said "all they remember is the thrill of watching the game." Looking back I realized how unlikely it is that when losing a bet, a gambler only remembers the thrill and is not upset. Although I do not address the disappointment, I do not make the absolute statement that is likely incorrect. This edit provides clarity for the reader on a point that may have been confusing.

Here I added real life examples and specificity to my essay. Originally, all I did was make the assumption that "this is how sports gamblers react." However, I needed evidence. So I talked to my friends about their betting habits and paid closer attention to what they said in everyday conversations. What I found was that the claim that I made was true. So I included this information in my essay, making it much clearer and stronger. The reader now knows that I am not just "making this up," and I have actually seen real life examples of what I am discussing in my essay.

My original draft said "congress clearly saw great concern surrounding gambling in the U.S." Although I knew what I was trying to say, I did not even know what this meant. This is an excellent example of simply not being clear enough in my writing. I changed this sentence so that the reader would be able to clearly see that congress was worried about the expansion of gambling in the US. My first attempt at this sentence must have left the reader very confused.

I added this section in order to be more engaging with the reader. In my original paper I did not include this part. This concrete evidence shows the reader that even though I just realized that I love challenges, it has actually been a part of my entire life. I just did not know it until now. This emphasizes the significance of my advisor meeting as well. I went my whole life facing challenges without realizing how much I love it, but my meeting with my advisor was significant enough to finally let me realize this. Now the reader can understand why I chose to write about this specific instance.

I decided to move this to the end of the essay, because I felt that it did not make sense at the beginning. This flows much better when I tell the whole story about my advisor and then reveal what I learned about myself, instead of the other way around. It also did not make much sense to put this earlier because the reader has no context in the beginning, and the buildup to my realization is more engaging than just revealing it at the beginning.

In my original essay, I only said that "I wanted to prove that I did not have to be like everyone else. There was no context for that thought, so the reader had no indication of where that sentence was coming from. This is why I added the first part about my advisor implying that I should wait another year. Now the reader understands what I mean and why I chose to include this part of the essay.

This piece came from my one-pager about what we learned about ourselves this semester. I chose to work on it further because I only got a "check" and I knew that I could make it more descriptive and engaging. In the original paper, I skip right to discussing how I talked to my advisor, without explaining why. This is the change that I made here. This information provides the reader with concrete reasons as to why I talked to my advisor. I also included this information about finding classes because I later discuss how my advisor suggested a class that led to my realization. This shows the reader why we were even discussing classes in the first place.