Revised Conclusion

My original conclusion was too focused on summarizing the claims addressed in the body paragraphs. I also inadvertently introduced new claims. Building on the ideas I incorporated in my revised introduction, I tied my new conclusion back to my original introduction. I decided to stick to the original introduction I wrote, and revise that for the final draft.

Rotman, Steve "END" 03/08/2005 via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Old Conclusion

     As a whole, David Francis creates an effective argument against the continued funding of the F-35 program by employing ethos and logos rhetorical strategies. However, his success is limited to his target audience. Trained and unbiased readers should be able to spot holes in his argument, and rhetorical elements that lack full development. His failure to acknowledge counterarguments, a typo in the introduction, and a clear bias all hurt his pathos. His choice to include only large statistics with negative connotations is useful in affecting his audience emotionally, but is not airtight as far as logos is concerned. Additionally his application of the Air Force strategic plan to the F-35 is questionable as the document does not specify how the F-35 fits into the Air Force’s updated strategy. Overall, Francis’ final product could use some more research and development, but it is likely adequate for the majority of his readers.

 

New Conclusion

    An engine roars. A rocket launches. An airplane takes off. It is the marvel of modern flight, but none of this can happen without rhetoric. Of course, it is engineering design and funding that make flight physically possible, but rhetoric is an important component that is often relegated to the background. To achieve flight, the engineers and businessmen must use effective rhetorical strategies to procure support and funding for aerospace engineering projects. However, the implementation of rhetorical strategies does not end there. As a project develops, it is likely to stir controversy. Supporters and opponents of a project voice their opinions through relevant genres to persuade specific audiences to support or undermine the project. To defend his work, an engineer must be able to communicate the logic that supports the project, and refute the rhetoric of opposing speakers. In the example article, Francis opposes the continuation of the F-35 fighter program.  As a whole, David Francis creates an effective argument against the continued funding of the F-35 program by employing ethos and logos rhetorical strategies. However, his success is limited to his target audience. The engineers, businessmen, and politicians behind the F-35 program must be equally adept at creating arguments within specific rhetorical situations to garner support for the program.