Original sentence: One criticism comes from the novelist David Foster Wallace, who in a 1985 paper "Richard Taylor's Fatalism and the Semantics of Physical Modality" suggests that Taylor reached his conclusion of fatalism only because his argument involved two different and inconsistent notions of impossibility
Edited sentence: " The problem in the argument arises with the semantics of "if".Another criticism comes from the novelist David Foster Wallace, who in a 1985 paper "Richard Taylor's Fatalism and the Semantics of Physical Modality" suggests that Taylor reached his conclusion of fatalism only because his argument involved two different and inconsistent notions of impossibility.If it doesn't happen, there is nothing to be done to enable it.If it happens, there is nothing to be done to prevent it.Neither option by itself is certain, even though both options together are certain.The argument fails because it uses "if" to imply that the event will happen with absolute certainty, when there is only certainty that the event either happens or doesn't, when both options are considered.The basic logical structure of logical fatalism is criticized as false.The structure of its argument is "Either a certain event happens or it doesn't happen.The use of the word "if" in this way frames the sentence as "if the event is certain to happen, then there is nothing to be done to prevent it", but there is no certainty that the event will happen.Thus this type of fatalism relies on circular reasoning