Upon reflection, this research proposal identifies an ability to generate inquiry by formulating a focused arguable research question that contributes to that of existing scholars. This is apparent as this proposal effectively identifies the gap as studies of visual rhetoric identify Guernica's persuasive mechanisms (color, layout, symbolism) but does not systematically reflect those mechanisms to audience responses. Where I stated, "studies of visual rhetoric identify the painting's mechanisms but rarely trace them to documented viewer responses." Furthermore, I validated this further in the passage "Studies of reception demonstrate that viewers were moved but do not systematically connect those responses back to perceived rhetoric nor have these inquiries validated Picasso's intended attempt in establishing an emotional response through his images within Guernica."  However, contradictory to this Young et al. was highlighted in saying "Guernica was a complete success. The public has now come to understand the emotional power of Picasso's image", that in itself allows a greater dynamic of how this proposal warrants further incite as well as validating a legitimacy to the intended research. This allow me to recognize a solid key learning outcome in respect of the pursuit of understanding in pathos as it relates to Guernica. Multiliteracies were demonstrated where some sources were in need of translation, that in itself, being derived from another country as well as other scholars provided a more robust multi-perspective regarding Guernica. The information literacy obtained through peer reviewed sources allowed for a solid advantage in supportive criteria regarding Guernica as well. With these peer reviewed sources I was then able to effectively and reliably draw conclusions to contribute to the knowledge that was sought after. These learning outcomes have certainly reflected a better understanding of how to perceive and identify pathos through interpretation and through disciplined synthesis of scholarly perspectives alongside public, institutional and oppositional responses, grounding emotional analysis in evidence rather than bias or misperception. This reinforces the depth of course learning through the challenge of scholarly interpretation. I have found, above all else, the revisions and adaptations that I have made were a profound learning experience for me. The ability to reconstruct a more effective research proposal through the essence of feedback allowed me to narrow down tremendously on a topic worthy of exploration.