My working thesis is largely unchanged from my original paper:
"Although Adam and Eve are the first of the human race it is inaccurate to consider them as symbolic representations of the race as a whole by the way they think, feel, and behave in Milton's Paradise Lost. Misreading this symbolic representation interrupts Milton's concept of the Fall and its influence on mankind."
I am adding emphasis to the "so what?" side of the argument. What are the results of reading too much intoOn Education, in which Milton claims that we all have the responsibility to use knowledge and learning to overcome the fall. Therefore, if we just assume that we all are confined to a fallen state by Adam's actions, does that diminish our responsibility to work our way out of it? Did Milton believe that we were to be punished for Adam's transgression? (Even if he did, he probably doesn't anymore, if that spirit-world missionary work is chugging along as planned.)
I'm also considering spending time on the fallacies that lead to misreadings. For example, it is inaccurate to assume that simply because we share common characteristics with Adam, he must be symbolic of us. I am concerned that would result in being distracting from the driving thesis, however. Do you feel as though it will be detrimental to the paper and make it read more like a debate speech, or is it worth some exploration?