Revised Conclusion

Work It Harder, Make It Stronger

For this blog post, I tried my hand at writing a new conclusion paragraph for my rhetorical analysis essay.

I tried to make my new conclusion more successful and effective by emphasizing two main focuses: a cohesive overview of my analysis, and a statement of why examining rhetoric in a computer science context is important. While I know I am supposed to avoid a summary of claims, and I'm wary that I may have gone too far, I felt that it was useful to describe in an overview how my selected text's author approached conveying her argument (I may cut down on this in the final draft). However, I also included a section that mentioned the effects powerful rhetoric can have in my field, which I feel spoke well to my audience and prompt, though I could maybe expand that a little more.

I may decide to do a two paragraph conclusion, actually, and split the summary and "so what?" elements.

M1-L3C "CONCLUSION" 27 November 2013 via wikimedia.org.
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Below is my OLD (previous) conclusion:

Ultimately, most of Tilli's rhetorical approaches to her argument enhance the message of her text, as she effectively creates a common understanding with the reader through appreciating America’s cultural tendencies towards fear over AI and legitimate dangers such technology presents, while simultaneously establishing herself as an expert a reader can relate to and trust. This situation that she places herself in allows Tilli to effectively convince the reader of her perspective and beliefs on the topic of AI research safety, as she becomes a respectable, trustworthy speaker through her collected tone and presence of qualifying statements. By the end of her article, Tilli becomes a figure that the reader can trust in, relate to, and follow because she maintains the non-aggressive, logical stance that artificial technology must be treated with due caution, but must still make progress because that technology has the potential to benefit humanity on an unprecedented level (Tilli). Overall, Tilli’s argument is highly effective in convincing the reader of her view, as it speaks directly to her audience within the context of the controversy over AI, and is constructed from references to America’s cultural and economic history, appeals logic and authority, and an inclusive, reassuring tone that seeks to instill a careful confidence in AI technology within the reader.



Below is my NEW attempt at a conclusion:

In examining Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," we can see that she constructed a thorough, effective argument through using specific methods and appeals to her audience. Tilli not only wrote her article within her rhetorical context, but she built her argument to operate within it by being fully aware that her audience, based on the history of American culture, is not readily accepting of AI technology and its realization in the near future. By acknowledging this perspective and establishing herself as an expert personally involved with the controversy over AI, Tilli connected to her readers and could speak more directly to them. Tilli then actively strengthened this connection by qualifying her argument to help include her readers in her argument while she assumed a calm, reassuring tone to ease her readers into her reasoning. However, as she discussed the great potential of AI technology, Tilli also paid attention to its possible consequences and referenced economic statistics on job automation that spoke to America's recent history of economic hardship, as she also cited a book on the future of artificial intelligence, which was somewhat inaccessible for audience, to a lesser effect. Through her connection to her audience and her balancing of faith and wariness over AI research, Tilli masterfully instilled a careful confidence in her readers that moved them to understand, and likely assume, Tilli's philosophy on AI development. In inspecting her rhetoric, we can now see the importance of how speakers and thinkers in our field of computer science may craft arguments to discuss technologies and inventions that may sway public opinion and even decide how the masses will embrace - or reject - the innovations we will create in the future.