Revised Introduction

Photosteve. "Crumpled Paper" 12/15/2010 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

"Scratch it and start over."  As hard as it was, I let go of my first draft of my introduction and wrote a brand new one.  The assignment was to write a totally new introduction that was better than our first in every way.  However, after finishing my second draft of my introduction, I realized something different.

My new introduction better captures the idea of forecasting the direction of my paper.  I clearly show that I will exemplify how rhetoric is important by analyzing a public argument for rhetorical strategies.  This point is lacking in my old introduction; but even still, my old introduction contains a well written metaphor that received praise from my peers.  Finding a combination of the two introductions will produce a truly effective start to my paper.

Old Introduction

Twelve jurors sit in a room.  They talk, they argue, they yell, all in the hope of having a dozen votes flip over the same verdict.  Some become aggressive, some resort to insults, and some go almost unnoticed as their quiet voices can never reach over the boasts of others.  Now imagine these twelve jurors being a thousand scientists, a hundred politicians, and a billion citizens all trying to reach one unanimous decision.  Such is the global issue of how to deal with climate change.  For almost 20 years, the public has argued the issue of global warming, its existence, its causes, its solutions, and its long term effects.  Politicians make impressive promises, scientists boast compelling claims, and the general population is forced to take sides.  But with so many voices, how does one make sure their opinion is heard?  If we look back to the jury room, those that lead the debates and those that never get their opinion heard are separated by one idea: rhetoric.  In the heated controversy, scientists and politicians cannot simply outline their concerns for climate change.  They are driven to make their claims with passionate conviction accompanied by insults that attack their opponent's argument.   Their ability to control the reader through their command of language plays a deciding factor in whether or not their voice will be heard, and more importantly whether it will be impactful.  Anders Levermann faced the same challenge in writing his article Why Climate Engineering Won’t Work.  To make sure people heed his message, he continually belittles the counterargument in an unsuccessful attempt to make the decision of accepting his opinion easy.  He balances this aggressive approach by accommodating an audience that has little knowledge in the field of engineering, and thus creates a persona that is both friendly and knowledgeable.

New Introduction

A cheerleader’s melodramatic breakdown, a jock’s harsh insults, a nerd’s defense of excessive facts, all are forms of rhetoric.  Even more, these same tactics are used by esteemed engineers in the professional world of science.  If you see scientific arguments as a battle of the most impressive facts, you are missing a large part of how engineers make arguments.  Just like everybody else, these scientists make use of sob stories, childish put-downs, and over-inflated facts to make the public heed their argument.  Anders Levermann implements some of these same strategies in his article “Why Climate Engineering Won’t Work.”  The scientist tackles debating a global argument that has been raging for many years.  With a simple list of bulleted facts, Levermann would be quickly overlooked among the numerous voices screaming for attention on the topic of climate change.  However, if we take a look at Levermann’s argument, it is clear that just because he uses rhetorical strategies to make sure he is heard does not mean these tactics will make his message more believable.  Levermann continually belittles the counterargument in an unsuccessful attempt to make the decision of accepting his opinion easy.  He balances this aggressive approach by accommodating an audience that has little knowledge in the field of engineering, and thus creates a persona that is both friendly and knowledgeable.