First and foremost, a major critique that I have about the paper is that it does not seem to talk ab ...

---

First and foremost, a major critique that I have about the paper is that it does not seem to talk about how any of the free will theories would address the problem between Beatrice and Griselda. It instead seems as though you focus more on factors that are not related to any of the theories. To start at the top and make my way down, the introductory paragraph does not really seem to address the prompt at all and instead focuses on free will and moral responsibility. These concepts are important, but the thesis needs to give your side as to who should bear more responsibility between Beatrice and Griselda. Next, you outlined the reasons why Beatrice is not responsible, but they all seem to focus on the nature of what a brain tumor would do to a person, rather than focusing on the situation in a philosophical context. For example, it is important to highlight what advocates for different philosophical ideologies would say about the situation instead of simply saying that the brain tumor would mess with Beatrice’s thought process. This same issue follows in the next paragraph. You discussed the impacts of external factors and moral liability, which is good, but you then make the paragraph more about the legal system than anything else. In that same paragraph, you also talk about how the tumor causes her to “obtain joy from activities that are highly condemned,” which seems fairly irrelevant to the discussion because they aren’t backed up by talking about one of the philosophical ideologies. In the next paragraph, I love the point you make about Beatrice’s constraints preventing her from attaining free will, but then you veered off and talked about why convicting Beatrice would actually be problematic, which once again seems irrelevant to the topic. I think your paper could also be boosted by explaining some terms that may be unfamiliar to some people. For example, you talked about free will and determinism but did not explain what either of them are. I like your analyses between Beatrice and Griselda about how Griselda acted out of an ignorance to moral responsibility, while Beatrice physically could not take that into account. Once again, describing guidance control is very unique and expresses extended knowledge, but it does not further your argument by standards of a philosophical paper. I am also sort of confused with the structure. It seems to be going back and forth between explaining Beatrice’s side and Griselda’s side, but does not follow any linear path when doing so. You explained why Griselda appeared to be more guilty at the bottom when that really could have been used to contextualize your argument at the top. Overall, I don’t think you clearly expressed you understood the material because you talked about other, non-philosophical factors for the most part. Also, I think the structure could improve, which would make your argument seem more clear. Lastly, this was a great analysis of the situation and I believe your argumentation was spot on.