¶ … Christianity and Buddhism to Health One of the most glaring aspects of this paper, Kramer Jr.'s "Worldview of Christianity and Buddha," is that it does not appear to have a hypothesis or a claim. The paper's theme, however, is clarified in the first paragraph as the author explicitly denotes that he will discuss aspects of Christianity and of Buddhism. But in doing so he never expressly writes a thesis statement, or tells the reader the single point to which all the others in this document relate. As such, there is a definite sense of confusion in reading this paper, since the reader understands that the author is detailing aspects of Christianity, Buddhism, and healthcare. Nonetheless, the reader is largely ignorant as to what the author's overriding reason for discussing this topic is, as well as his opinion about the subject. Essentially, the author has clarified the fact that the subject of this document is about the two previously mentioned religions and their relationships to healthcare. He needs to provide a claim for this subject in which he states his viewpoint. Without such a hypothesis or thesis, he is merely stating facts about Christianity and Buddhism, relating them to healthcare with varying degrees of efficacy, and not providing a substantial degree of meaning for this information.

It is never easy to determine the thesis for the work of another, yet there is some information that the author offers in the final paragraph of the paper -- which seems to be the one that mostly addresses the purpose of this assignment. It is in this paragraph alone that the author offers some of his own opinions about the subject of the paper. For instance, he states that "If people were to follow the ways of Jesus Christ and Buddha the world would be a better, more healthful place" (Kramer Jr., 2015, p. 8). Such a statement could function as the hypothesis or claim for this document -- particularly if it was initially offered in the introductory paragraph. Additionally, this sort of thesis could serve as the focal point with which to build the rest of the paper around. It would aid the author's conviction immensely if the fact that following the teachings of Christ and Buddha could result in a better world permeated his essay, and even concluded the other supporting paragraphs. Although this particular point does not necessarily have to serve as the hypothesis or claim for the paper, the author could easily go back to the final paragraph of this document and find another statement he wrote -- which actually contextualizes the information about Christianity, Buddhism and healthcare in a cogent manner -- and utilize it for his hypothesis.

There are great portions of this paper in which the flow of the paper and the sentence structure make sense. Unfortunately, however, there are also frequent instances in which the sentence structure and flow of the paper are difficult for the reader to comprehend. There are a significant amount of grammatical, syntactical and punctuation errors littered throughout this document. As such, they serve as a point of distraction for the reader and do not help the author's conviction. Granted, this document appears to be an initial draft, and these errors should be readily rectified with the simple aid of a proofreader. Still, these mistakes are a vital part of this essay that the author will want to fix in order so that it will leave a better impression on the reader. For instance, the paper begins with, "This paper and discuss how religion plays…" (Kramer Jr., 2015, p. 1), which is obviously missing some words. The way the document currently reads it appears as though the author was not a native speaker of English -- which is not a problem in and of itself, as long as there is appropriate editing to compensate for these errors.

Other than these grammatical, punctuation, and syntactical mistakes, the prudent reader would have to credit the author with presenting this material in a logical, lucid way. The sentence structure is credible on the whole. The only other issue with the general flow of the paper is that the reader is unclear as to what the point of the various information the author includes is. Thus, the reader is not always cognizant of where it is that the paper is flowing towards. Additionally, there are some sophisticated sentences in this document for which the writer deserves commendation. These are predominantly found in the paragraphs in which the writer elucidates some of the lesser known aspects of both Christianity and Buddhism, which helps...

For instance, the writer states, "For six years Siddartha wandered the countryside begging for food and shelter attempting to sublimate his earthly concerns through yoga and meditation" (Kramer Jr., 2015, p. 5). This is a sophisticated sentence indicative of the writer's potential.
In many ways, the paragraphs in which the author details the intricacies of Christianity and of Buddhism function as both the best of the paper and the most eminent areas for restructuring. Simply in terms of flow, it is apparent that the writer is well versed about both of these religions. As such, those paragraphs in which he illuminates the role of the Holy Spirit in Christianity or the worth of dharma in Buddhism are those in which he writes the best, and the paper flows well. However, this laudable aspect of the paper also detracts from it as well. Instead of devoting more attention to how these two religions relate to health care, or even how they relate to one another in terms of points of comparison, the author seems more apt to merely explain the way they function, instead. In that respect, tempering his flow of the knowledge of these religions with more information about how they relate to one another and to healthcare can certainly improve this paper.

Although the way that the author organized the paper is certainly logical, a few changes in the structure of this document would make it more compelling. Again, the most salient of these organizational changes revolves around the introductory paragraph and the insertion of a thesis of claim which was addressed in the first section of this review. Doing so will provide a patent focus for the direction of the rest of the paper that attentive readers will not mistake. In terms of the structuring of the rest of this document, however, it is first prudent to offer a brief outline of the paper's current structure. The author offers separate paragraphs for the worldview of each religion, and then offers that religion's worldview of practitioners (people), the environment, health, and nursing, respectively. There are certain advantages of doing so in a consecutive sense for each respective religion, as the reader is able to ascertain that religion's stance on each of these items.

Still, for the simple fact that there are parts of this assignment that make it a comparative essay, it might behoove the author to alternate supporting paragraphs between the religions in a consecutive fashion. For instance, the writer could detail the worldview of Christianity and then detail the worldview of Buddhism in the following paragraph -- so that the reader might get a better understanding of similarities and dissimilarities between the two religions on commonalities. It is easier for the reader to compare and contrast these two religions (and their varying worldviews in terms of environment, practitioners, etc.) when the points of comparison follow one another, than it is for the reader to attempt to go back a couple of pages and differentiate how Buddhism and Christianity are different in terms of health, for instance. Additionally, by organizing the paper this way the author could have preserved a better sense of balance and parity between the information contained in the paragraphs. For instance, it is clearly notable that some of the paragraphs pertaining to Buddhism are markedly shorter than their counterparts for Christianity. This fact is demonstrated most notably in the fledgling paragraphs about the worldview of Buddhism regarding nursing and regarding the environment, respectively. By placing the information about Buddhism near the end of the paper, the writer likely dedicated much more attention to Christianity than the former because he addressed Christianity first. Moreover, the information in the second to last paragraph in this document -- in which the author details the differences between the two religions -- made for the most interesting part of the essay and that which is certainly conforms to the assignments instructions. It might have been interesting to include this information in the paragraphs about Buddhism if the essay were structured so that the paragraphs alternated one another between Christianity and Buddhism.

Not all of the items listed in the assignment guidelines and in the rubric were covered in significant depth in this assignment. Some areas, however, were, and the author deserves plaudits for this work. For instance, it is fairly apparent that he is extremely…