– A corrected rewrite of the original essay, incorporating both (1) adequate responses to feedback and (2) correction of typographical, grammatical, or stylistic errors. 
– A new paragraph detailing a response to the objection developed in the original paper on behalf of or “in the voice of” the philosopher whose views are being analyzed.  This response may be directly based in the text or may be more of a reconstruction of what the philosopher would say; in either case, the criterion to aim for is accuracy – you want the response to be one that the person could have plausibly made.

– A new paragraph incorporating your own brief rejoinder or comment on the new response, and summarizing the main point of your essay.
FEEDBACK FROM THIS ESSAY: (focus on correcting these)

Intro: good but you might give us a preview of what the objection will be

Explication: see below

Objection: see below

Overall: this strikes me as a bit too much like a book report. I haven’t read the book you’re referencing to know whether you’re presenting their views well or not. It’s okay to use other works as sources for objections of course but focus needs to be on Sextus and throughout it seems to be on Annas and Barnes. Again, this would be less of an issue if you focused on one particular argument/interpretation from Sextus but there are a lot of potential objections you cite that lack some needed explanation.
REQUIRED SOURCE:

Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Skepticism Julia Annas and Jonathan Barnes (ed.) (Cambridge:  Cambridge UP, 2000).

READING PARTS:

Sextus, Outlines of Skepticism, I.1-8, 10-14 (read only Mode 1 from ch. 14)

Sextus, Outlines of Skepticism, I.14

Sextus, Outlines of Skepticism, I.15, 18-27

Sextus, Outlines of Skepticism, II.1-6

Sextus, Outlines of Skepticism, III.1-3

Sextus, Outlines of Skepticism, III.21-25, 32