Revised Conclusion

Photosteve. "Crushed Paper" 12/14/2010 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Scratch it and start over... again."  This time however, my new conclusion is better than my old conclusion in every way.  The new one answers the question of "so what?" and brings the topic of rhetoric into a larger problem.  It also keeps in touch with the audience of my paper as it shows not only why analyzing rhetoric is important, but why it is important to engineers.

Old Conclusion

While the author’s use of rhetoric captures the reader and makes them inclined to hear him out, the strategies simultaneously send mixed messages that leave the audience questioning his credibility.  This confusion presents an interesting situation when reader reaches the final paragraphs of the article.  Levermann focuses his entire argument on fighting the popular idea of climate engineering, yet, he concludes his work with a single paragraph on his own solution to climate change.  The assertion is introduced with an insult, “if we don’t want to screw up our climate…”  The slander has no specific target, leaving the reader to think it is possibly them.  Why has the author been so friendly throughout his article and now is suddenly threatening?  The answer may lie in the concept of the jurors.  With so many voices, a passive-aggressive statement will get overlooked.  Unfortunately, the author takes a devastating turn in his rhetorical strategy when he believes he must make his final claim aggressive.  However, just like in a jury room, this technique caused some to concede and others to refuse Levermann’s claim.

New Conclusion

Whether Anders Levermann needed to manipulate his audience into siding with him or he just needed to make his voice heard, his rhetorical strategies send mixed messages to his audience, making his readers question his credibility.  And yet, the argument that Levermann is trying to make a dent in is so large that his voice is just one among millions.  This author is not the only scientist trying to sway the public through emotional words and inflated personas.  To shift through the thousands of news speeches blogs to find non-manipulative arguments would be unrewarding and a waste of time.  To carefully pick through every article for how the author uses rhetorical strategies to persuade readers would be tedious and impossible.  So among these voices do we simply learn to trust no one?  Not at all, but understanding how speakers, even those among the science community, use language to inflate their argument is key to becoming an informed engineer.