This week I worked on the structures and counter arguments of my paper after submitting the first draft. In my paper, after introducing what are some common stereotypes of autism, I started to talk about the consequences. But in my first draft, my structures of that part is messy. In peer review, I got the chance to see Olivia’s paper. Her essay is clear and engaging, and every paragraph connects to each other finely. One thing I noticed on her paper is that she also include some good side of the story as counter arguments. She also gave me some advises on the transition between paragraphs. In addition, I found her paper has lots of counter examples to approve her arguments; one thing I noticed on her paper is that she also include some good side of the story as counter arguments. So I have some conclusions about my paper: more counter arguments are needed; connection and the flow between paragraphs need to be improved. So, I started to fix every topic sentence and concluding sentence to transit one argument to another. Then, I went to writing center on Thursday to search more advises. The tutor, Linsey, showed me where to add some more counter arguments and what ideas should be combined and separate more clearly. I put the difficulty of diagnosing autism as one paragraph. Then, the struggle between families as another. I used Tito as a big counter example to show environment and relationships between people can influence the behavior autistic people. The peer review really give me a opportunity to see others’ advantages on their papers. By comparing to my group member’s paper, I started to realize what I can do to advance my own paper. Furthermore, the writing center provides a lot of help on clearing my structures, and strengthen my arguments.