Revised Introduction

This blog post is a presentation of a revision to my introductory paragraph of my rhetorical essay. I have included my original introduction to compare with my newly revamped one directly underneath with a starting explanation as to why my reconstructed paragraph is better than the original.

Tom Morris. "A paraody of the famous "We Can Do It!" poster." 03/08/2012 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

The following two introductions are my original and revised introductions to my rhetorical essay on the effectiveness of the author's rhetorical strategies on his audience. The newly reconstructed introduction that I have created is better than my original in a sense that it now actually presents the effectiveness towards an audience rather than it being just about the rhetorical strategies themselves. The recreated version can better help a reader get an understanding on what is being analyzed while also getting additional insight on what the controversy actually is.

Original Introduction:

Over the past several years, the topic of geoengineering has become a growing controversy. The idea that man can engineering the planet’s climate to solve worldy problems has people wondering the effectiveness that the methods could have. In a relatively recent interview with climate scientist David Keith, reporter Brad Plumer asks Keith the ideas surrounding the idea of what he calls, “solar engineering.” What Keith says in the interview may have people fuming while others may accept his ideas with open arms. This essay will focus on the rhetorical strategies Plumer and Keith use to effectively give their readers a sense of connection. The Washington Post’s Brad Plumer and David Keith, who also carries the title of Harvard Professor and Carbon Engineering co-founder, utilize multiple rhetorical strategies to better connect with readers to aid in the presentation of geoengineering and the environment.

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


Revised Introduction:

Fracking has recently come under fire as studies showing its risks have come apparent; solar radiation management, although in confusion, has people wondering the actual effects that it has on the environment if any; carbon dioxide capturing has been dubbed a money-seeking dead-end in the words of critics from around the world. All of these processes are most related to the ideology of geoengineering. One may ask what that is -- geoengineering is the process of engineering the planet’s natural occurrences to better our lives. But this does not always mean that it will benefit our futures. The use of geoengineering in the earth and in the atmosphere are hot topics on the stovetop as groupings argue for or against the methods employed. In a relatively recent interview with climate scientist, David Keith, reporter Brad Plumer asks for his subject’s personal opinions and ideas surrounding geoengineering. The interview focuses in on the topic of what Keith calls, “solar geoengineering” or solar radiation management -- which is the process of maintaining a stable and healthy level of solar radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The idea that man can engineering the planet’s climate to solve worldly problems has people questioning the effects that could be intentionally or unintentionally implemented on the Earth. This essay will focus on the effectiveness that Plumer’s rhetorical strategies have in connecting with the audiences that are attracted to his article, “Should we use geoengineering to cool the Earth? An interview with David Keith.”