I would say that after the final review of my 2nd Essay, the most notable strength was my personal connection. I found that not only was it longer and in more depth but I was able to bridge a strong connection between my experience and the texts within Bloom’s Is Empathy Overrated? “I can relate to the events of the Sandy Hook Massacre on a personal level as my hometown isn’t far from where it happened. I lived about 30 minutes away at the time and had played Newtown’s football team often in Middle School.” I elaborated on how I was able to interpret the misuse of empathy in the situation through my own eyes. Compared to the revision of Essay #1, I would say the 2nd time around was more thorough. I had an easier chance understanding what to look out for like bad transitions or quotes that didn’t match since I now had more experience. It was also easier to synthesize source materials as I went a different way in my second essay by writing down the key quotes I would use beforehand instead of during the writing process.

 “This relates back to the idea that while David Foster Wallace makes a great claim about the importance of stepping outside yourself mentally. This being said, Paul Bloom’s opinions on empathy and boundaries are ones that everyone should consider.” I found this last portion of my essay was the strongest but of course has the potential to be stronger. I acknowledge both pieces evenly and their ideas but I could have gone into further depth.Finally, I feel that overall my thesis in my first essay, “Overall, social media is an inhibitor that takes away from our essential communicative abilities but can have both positive and negative effects.” didn’t have as strong a pull as the thesis in my 2nd essay, “While David Foster Wallace’s views on less self centered thinking are valid, Bloom’s views on empathy’s negative effects have greater merit and should be prioritized in our encounters with others.” Part of what gives me this impression is that my 2nd essay thesis was not only longer but still obtained it’s sharpness and clear point that kept it from being wordy whereas the 1st thesis could have had a little more depth.