At first, my conclusion is just about summarizing my previous ideas in the paper. I think that is not necessary, so I change the conclusion into a different direction. Also leaving a question to reader is a good idea to let them think for the answer.

Originally, there is no discussion about myself, and I think it is a response essay about my thinking towards that article. So when I read that article, I actually searched my Wechat's friends and tried to figure out who is my read friend and who is not. So I think reflect this event on the paper can clearly show my thinking pattern and also support my ideas.

This piece originated from a response paper about Living With Social Network, written by Steven D. Krause.

Originally, the beginning of the conclusion is the story between my mother and I and how I behave differently after this experience. I changed the direction of the conclusion since I delete the dialogue in the beginning of the essay. In this directly discussion about family. I think it is more powerful and meaningful than taking about the story between my mother and I. Also, what I want to emphasis in this essay is about family, not just mother. So bringing up the discussion earlier is much more useful than first mention the story between my mother and I.

Originally there is no insight from the stories, but I think there is some kind of irony that I could bring up and let the reader think about, because in the three stories about the three children, I did not have enough insight. So I add this paragraph to deepen the essay. Also, letting the reader think the answer is better than I write what I think directly.

Originally, there is not many descriptions about why the boy want to damage the door and how I persuade him to be a positive boy. So I add these details, because I think these details are necessary and readers will see a more consistent story, and also it revels my personalities.

Originally there is no dialogue, and only one sentence about she will receive the treatment of her eyes in America. However, I consider the original way as week and readers cannot see how poor she is. So I represent another small event with her. By these two dialogues, reader can understand how eager she wants to see the real world, but also her love to the orphanage.

Originally, there is no description about the background information of the orphanage. However, I think providing more information about the orphanage is really necessary and more information will give reader a vivid scene in their head. Therefore, they will understand my feeling better.

I changed the entire introduction. The original introduction is the dialogue between my mother and me. However, I consider it be unnecessary and seems I am too young too naive. So I changed the introduction and directly introduced my topic. Therefore, I can provide more details. And I think this new way work well.

Sub

I kind of feel like you can discuss more about the kid's action, because it seems to be the rising tension between you and the child.

I really like how you brought up the discussion about the gun experience, probably like a gun phobia. Since first you talk about the bug phobia, I think the connection that you want to show is not so clear. As my understanding, you wrote about the gun phobia, because you want to show the courage that the gun phobia brought to you and how it helps you overcome the bug phobia. However, in the class, as we discuss what is your subject, I see a different understanding towards the gun phobia. So maybe you can clear the confusion by showing a clear connection.

Since you brought up the prayer and how you changed your view from cliche to meaningful, I really want to know how your view changed and why the prayer makes you think a different way. So maybe a little more description about the prayer is much more helpful for the readers to understand your thoughts.

I really love your essay!!!!! It reminds me my experience and your essay almost makes me crying!!! But giving one advice, I think you can elaborate more on your conclusion. Probably as Brian said in the class, you can relate this essay with your mother's saying of writing everything on the paper. I really like the essay and I think a deeper conclusion will make the essay excellent!

I really like how you mention difference in China and America, but I think this part can be more concise, because for me, it seems not so relevant. So you can concise it into a more effective way or develop a more smooth transition.

I think, maybe you can add some transition sentence to the "cool" and “uncool" idea, because it seems to me a little bit too abrupt. However, I really like you mention "cool" and "uncool"

I think the easiest way to change the introduction into the correct topic is concise the phenomenon of decreasing number of Korean international students into one sentence. And then discuss social media in your introduction, so in this way, readers will clearly know your topic.

I think you can probably interview more people and focus on why other students think student athlete have more advantage, in stead of arguing their thoughts are wrong.

I really like this final paragraph, but I think you can expand more on this. When I feel something interesting and meaningful, the paragraph ends. So probably you can elaborate more.

I think maybe the easiest way to clear the confusion is just write the two friends' names. So readers will clearly know who are you talking about.

I really like how you use the secondary resources, but in this resource, Saad indicates the connection between consumer behavior and evolution. However, you discuss the biological instinct before this resource, and after this resource, you discuss a different thoughts. So I don't see any connection between the source and your thought. Maybe you can elaborate more, or just write one more sentence to show the connection.

I really like your connections between language and identity, but maybe it's time for you to write more of the rhetorical method of Social Talk. You did a great job on interpreting Thomas's statement in a deeper content.

I really like how Lamott's text evokes your personal experience, but I think your paper have the same issue with my paper: we both discuss more about how the context influence us, instead of how the author uses specific sentences or word choices to convince readers. I noticed that how you connect your own experience with author's statements, and I did that in my paper too, but maybe we both use too much personal experience which gives readers the wrong direction of what we want to achieve in this paper.