Revised Conclusion

Similar to my previous post, in this post I will present my original conclusion paragraph to my rhetorical essay along with a reconstructed version that I've created from scratch. My new conclusion has been recreated with the goal of engaging with my readers through my writing. I will not use the "Summarize Claims" approach as it is not interesting or creative.

JF10. "Super Mario World The End." 12/16/2007 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

The following two conclusions are my original and revised conclusions to my rhetorical essay on the effectiveness of the author's rhetorical strategies on his audience. The newly reconstructed conclusion that I have created is better than my original in a sense that it now answers the question of "So What?" My readers can now gain a sense of understanding that the topic is far from over and debate will continue years after reading my essay. The recreated version will better help a reader draw his or her own views from the article and my essay without me having to force the information upon them.

Original Conclusion:

The prominent three rhetorical strategies presented by Plumer, as previously stated, are: the use of an interview, the formatting of an article based on the interview, and the presentation of arguments with counterarguments and refutations. He uses these strategies to aid a reader in better understanding the context of geoengineering and its applications with regards to global engineering. In review, the use of an interview greatly increases a reader’s ability to comprehend a person’s opinions and beliefs from which he or she is commenting or answering in the interview. The author’s choice of formatting his article in comparison to the interview is a great addition to the using the strategy of an interview itself. And lastly, how the author conveys questions in argument presentation form while Keith reluctantly answers in a two sided manner helps a reader develop a clear understanding of Keith’s opinions from his responses in the interview. These strategies employed by Plumer help his article become a significant source of information on geoengineering from the view of an advocate of the methods used. His goals are seemingly to inform his readers the ideology behind solar geoengineering while also giving evidence of the support for it and the possible risks that come with it.

Here is the link to my rhetorical essay that this conclusion paragraph came from.


Revised Conclusion:

As the article’s rhetorical strategies positively affect the audience’s ability to understand the information given within it, one must look at the possible outcomes to its effectivity. If a reader is truly comprehending the information presented, then how will he or she form opinions on the matter. In a debate, or a controversy, a person will most likely pick a side to support, that person will form certain views on a subject depending on the portrayal of information given from a source. In review, the author of the article chooses to focus in on the rhetoric of using an interview, formatting the article based on that interview, and then presenting arguments for counterarguments to arise in a way such that a reader can understand where each person is coming from. Drawing back to the possible outcomes, one may wonder where would a reader go from here on after reading the article. He or she taking from the information may decide to take an immediate stance on the topic or decide on sitting this round out. The author uses an effective array of strategies that would allow for a reader to draw his own understanding rather than having it forced upon him. Plumer’s goals are seemingly to inform his audience the ideology behind solar geoengineering with regards to global warming, while also giving evidence of the support for it and the possible risks that come with it.