I believe this conclusion is better because it answers the "so what" question in a much better way than the old version. Both are good, but I personally think the new one has more sense to it.
Old Version:
From presenting other’s opinions, establishing an adequate amount of credibility, and taking into account what the central message he wanted to leave his specific audience with, Revkin achieved what he set out to do. He felt as though leaving his readers with food for thought was a better way to discuss a controversy rather than telling them what he believed and why. The big picture was in his mind. It seems as though Revkin’s evident rhetorical strategies were just waiting to be analyzed in a way which we can understand what his message was. Every writer is writing for a reason and I believe it’s our duty as well-educated citizens to find out what that reason is.
New Version:
All of the rhetorical strategies that Revkin used on his audience were for a main purpose. He wanted his audience to think and presented ideas in the ways he did so they could understand why this matters. Emotional appeals in the form of personal stories are essential for making the personal connection to readers which is part of why it matters. Ethical appeals like how Revkin established his credibility in the first few sentences in his article built a trust between him and his audience which is also essential for them to believe anything he wrote. The big picture was in his mind. He had a message for his audience and sometimes you can't just flat out say what that message is because it loses its effect. That's why rhetorical analysis is so important. It's our duty to find out what writers like Andrew Revkin really want to say to us.
 |
| Altmann, Gerd. "End Guy Cinema Strip". 8/27/07 via Pixabay. CC0 Public Domain License. |
No comments:
Post a Comment