Revised Conclusion

In this post I will be providing both my original and revised conclusion to my rhetorical analysis. I will be revising my conclusion to answer a so what question.

ClkerFreeVectorImages, "End, Detour, Sign, Signage, Information, Motorists", uplaoded 21 October 2012 via pixabay.com, Public Domain.

Original

The use of character in this article was what drove the message of the article while logic took the back seat in the argument. In physics, the use of logic is one of the most important things when arguing. However this paper has shown that there is a possibility to convince people in the physics field using mainly ethos. While physicist are not always directly creating arguments in the typical sense, when arguing with people outside of the field of physics, these strategies from this argument are key to creating effective arguments.

Revised

In light of this it can be seen that Francis uses his character to drive the message of his article while drawing on logical arguments to show his well educated audience that cross-disciplinary research is to be taken on cautiously. From this rhetorical analysis the takeaways from this is that for an argument in physics, the best attack is either from the character or logical arguments due to the fact that the audience is typically well educated. In addition to this knowledge of understanding which rhetorical strategies to use, the other important takeaway from this analysis is to identify the difference between an appeal to character from an appeal to logic because the two often have similar qualities.