Revised Conclusion

For this blog post I will publish my old conclusion paragraph from my project 2 draft along with a new and totally revised conclusion paragraph.  I will then explain why I think the new conclusion paragraph is better than the original.

Apple_logo_Think_Different. "Apple logo Think Different vectorized". 31 January 2011 via Wikipedia Public Domain 

I believe that my new conclusion paragraph is an improved version compared to the original.  I still restate the thesis of my rhetorical analysis, but I do so in a more concise manner.  I compose all of the strategies that the author used in his text and stating that he used them to propose his message.  Overall, I still mention how the author provides information in his text that is not persuasive, but still gives the readers the ability to answer whether or not the process of de-extinction is ethical.

My Original Conclusion Paragraph:

After viewing the way Cohen changed his tone throughout the article while still providing clear transitions between sets of texts, new students who are studying sciences are able to have a better understanding of the controversy. By adhering to the cultural values and ideologies of the audience, the article explored the beneficial and costly aspects of the process of de-extinction with the emphasis being placed on the way Cohen conveyed his purpose. Rather than read about his opinions on the issue, the different viewpoints on how de-extinction can in fact have helpful characteristics, it can also have detrimental ones too. Cohen did a good job of delivering important information that could help readers choose the stance they could take on this issue, whether or not they believe the process of de-extinction is ethical.

My New and Revised Conclusion Paragraph:

Cohen does a fine job of not persuading his readers into choosing one position over another, but instead relates to both sides in this issue. He separates the prominent topics involved in this controversy and explains the difference between each of them. The key takeaway from his text is using an informative tone to connect the different sections with one another. It includes positive and negative aspects to the issue which gives a reader the chance to view a position they may or may not favor. By showing the ecological effects de-extinction can have along with the philosophical and utilitarian perspectives, Cohen successfully explained the purpose of his text. The varying information put together gave readers the ability to formulate an opinion of the overall issue, whether or not they believe de-extinction is an ethical process.