Peer 1 stated that the explanation of Descartes was done well, as it discussed most of the main points. However, he/she claimed that in my opinion section, I should have discussed my opinion on whether his standard of knowledge is reasonable or not. In a way, I did disagree with Descartes' standard of knowledge, by stating that knowledge/information cannot be attained from certain disciplines he mentions within his paper (Mathematics). However, after reading the paragraph a few times, I do see what peer one is trying to say, I could have directly stated "I do not think his standard of knowledge is reasonable" and went more in depth about it, by talking directly about the evil being, hallucinations, and dreams in order to be more clear. As for
