To be completely honest, I completed the project in the span of a week, but I did have multiple versions and I chose which one I liked best.

The biggest factor was my formatting- when certain topics or terminology is introduced. I needed to introduce things but wait to explain them fully in order to maximize the explanations placement in the paragraph(s) if that makes sense. I wanted to introduce terms, but I did not want to have to explain them right then and there as it would disrupt the flow.

I shifted my claim from simply saying that there needs to be more specific regulation to- there must be one universal regulation.

To be completely honest, while this may not be the best idea in practice, It serves the evidence and approach I used best. The whole point here is how lack of and/or broad regulation, as in, voluntary vs mandatory, affect both patients and physicians, here is it from a legal, ethical, and moral perspective; Here is how a federal law alleviates all these thingsAnother thing I needed to edit is how I utilize my resources.

Did I want to use them as an argument or part of an argument? Or is it better to use it to defend and explain a counterargument?

I ended up doing a mix of both.

After meeting with you for class, you told me that in the segments most important, I should hand-hold the reader and spell out what im trying to say. That way the reader does not have to read between the lines at all.

Finally, the last thing I tweaked was whether I introduced the argument or counter argument first. Personally, I find that introducing the counterargument first leaves the reader with a stronger impression.