Revised Conclusion

My peer's comments suggested that my conclusion was strong the way it was, and I agreed with them. However, in order to receive a fresh take and possible better my essay, I rewrote it in a different way. I changed sentences around and varied my vocabulary to hopefully make my new conclusion superior to my original. As I stated in my last blog post, I would appreciate an instructor's take on both of these paragraphs to help me choose the most suitable one.

Revised Introduction:

         

           With an elaborate and clever use of rhetorical strategies, Dighe's article is able to appeal to his audience's values and beliefs, while not veering from his focus on why marijuana should be legalized. The author appeals to older generations by not insulting their beliefs that marijuana is harmful and illegal, but effectively conveys his claims without forcing an opinion on his audience. Dighe's article outlines the economic net benefits of marijuana legalization in a manner that outweighs the net negative benefits. He provides personal stories, factual claims, and credible information in order to appeal to ethos, pathos and logos. He does this while sneakily persuading his audience by his easy-going tone and concise method of presenting his information.

Original Conclusion:

Dighe’s extensive use of rhetorical strategies throughout his article appeal to his audience’s values and beliefs, while maintaining a focus on his pro legalization argument. While still adhering to cultural values of older generations where marijuana was looked down upon by not forcing an opinion on his readers, Dighe’s article outlines the economic net benefits of marijuana legalization while showing readers that they outweigh the net negative benefits. He provides personal stories, factual claims, and credible information in a non-argumentative way, while sneakily persuading his audience by his conversation-like tone and “cut to the chase” business-style writing.

Pixabay. Change, July 2012, CC0 Public Domain