You wrote this for me so I need it edited: -Overall you’re presenting good ideas

You wrote this for me so I need it edited: -Overall you’re presenting good ideas, but there are some key issues that you will want to address (see below). -You won’t need section headings for a paper of this length -You say that the outlook that “the head rules the belly through the chest” is a demonstration of Tao denialism, but it’s the exact opposite: that outlook is a representation of the Tao (not its denial). -Avoid nominalization. Rather than using nouns (e.g. “the examination of the Platonic conception reveals …”), use verbs (e.g. “examining the Platonic conception reveals …” or “by examining the Platonic conception, we can see …”). This is just one example, but you use this sort of construction several times throughout your paper. -More generally, though you are conveying good ideas, your writing is getting in the way of those ideas quite a bit. There are many confusing sentences that you will want to edit for clarity. I encourage you to work with a Writing Tutor as you edit this paper. -The other main issue is your source usage. I really don’t see how the Moschella and O’Connor articles relate to the points you’re mentioning. Moschella, for example, never mentions “emotions,” “religious sanction,” or “inhereited taboos” – those words and ideas are not found in the article. Similarly, the O’Connor article is not talking about Lewis, nor does it mention “science,” “technology,” or “education.” What’s going on with these? Content – 2.75/3 (Good content, but add a response to your view a bit more clearly) Argument – 2.75/3 Insight – 2.5/3 Sources – 1.5/3 (I see how the Mosteller article relates – though you should use it quite a bit more – but not how the others do) Mechanics – 2.5/3