I really liked the segment where you compared the window story to the consequences a student must face if they do not study for an exam. The student is willingly taking the risk of being unprepared in exchange for leisure, as you mention

“While they are able to completely enjoy themselves, they forfeit the chance to study for their class, likely landing them a bad grade.” 

This is a great comparison to a relatable occurrence in every person’s life that I wholeheartedly agree with. I, for one, have experienced this time and time again and always do my best to think of my future self and make sure to study. Even though it is hard at the moment, the outcome makes it worth it in the end. In Bastiat's example, the father should have taught his son form a young age to be careful around windows in order to lesson the odds of something like that happening. Secondly, you made a great point when you reiterated the above topic when analyzing the possible risks of such an action. For example, you mentioned that forfeiting study time can have ramifications such as a poor GPA, which could result in no scholarships–A consequence that could affect the entire family. This was yet again a wonderful representation of a risk from not studying. As I read near the end of the paper, it was apparent that your opinions and relatable comparisons were less pronounced. Make sure to include more of your opinions on a topic all the way throughout the paper. You made it a point to provide a lot of context and summarization at the start, but neglected it near the end. Nevertheless, you provided a good outline of concepts such as taxation and prohibition. I am in agreement with your claim that many times a certain regulation can have differing effects than its known intention. An example of this was the government bailing out banks recently, which can increase more risky behavior in the future. If the government is always there to support institutions such as banks, then what is stopping them from taking on more and more risk? The intention of the government is to help the people that had funds stuck in the banks that failed, but the principle may hurt more people in the long run. Overall, you provided an excellent summary of both chapters, just make sure to include more of your opinions in the latter half of the paper.