Original sentence: "  As a polemicist, Branden argues, she often dismissed her opponents on "moralistic or psychologistic" grounds, and her broad generalizations often lacked scholarly rigor." She considered her philosophy to be the "exact opposite" of Kant's on "every fundamental issue".For example, Rand has been criticized for her critique of Immanuel Kant.In particular, Walsh—an Objectivist—argues that both philosophers adhere to many of the same basic positions, and that Rand exaggerated her differences with Kant.Philosophers George Walsh and Fred Seddon have both argued that Rand misinterpreted Kant.Rand was strongly opposed to certain views she ascribed to Kant, particularly that reason is unable to know reality "as it is in itself.Stressing that this "is not to deny the sophistication or originality of Rand's thought," Chris Matthew Sciabarra discusses Branden's suggestion that her "wholesale rejection" of some other viewpoints was due to her "theatrical, emotional, and abrasive style
Edited sentence: Any honest attempt at understanding a genius like Ayn Rand and her work would be useless unless those who wish to know more about her and her work, after reading Ayn Rand's entire body of fiction and non-fiction, follow it up by reading the above stated two books by Dr.Leonard Peikoff, her intellectual heir  and a veteran professor of philosophy in general and Objectivism in particular, followed by the book "Passion of the Ayn Rand’s Critics - The Case Against the Brandens written by James S.Peikoff and James Valliant, the only legally authorized scholars who objectively present her philosophy and a very insightful and accurate expose of her critics respectively.The two most important and objectively written books on Ayn Rand’s philosophy and a brilliant expose of the critics of Ayn Rand’s personal life and her philosophy are “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" written by Dr