Revised Conclusion

M1-L3C, "CONCLUSION" 11/27/13 via Wikipedia Commons,  Creative  Commons Attribution License

In this post I got rid of my conclusion from my rough draft and started over, which needed to be done with such a vague, disinteresting conclusion. While my first conclusion didn't add anything for the reader, my 2nd conclusion adds the answer of the "So What?" question for the reader, which is far more interesting and effective. My 2nd conclusion also ties into things i mentioned in my introduction, while still including pieces of my thesis, therefore making my essay more seamless.

Old Conclusion:

"Cahill uses the rhetorical strategies of appealing to logic, credibility, and emotion in his argument to convince his audience of the importance of sex-difference research. His argument demonstrates an effective argument in neuroscience, as you need all three strategies to convince someone of an unpopular opinion in a field that is so important, factual, and controversial."

New Conclusion:

While inequality among the sexes is extremely problematic in wage gaps, the workforce, and virtually all other aspects of society, it is actually an important differentiation in the field of neuroscience. Through effective use of evidence, scientific expertise, and dramatic tone, Cahill convinces his audience, which he assumes may disagree with his sex-difference research, as many others did, that the research matters and should continue. Cahill's argument is a perfect example of what we should aim towards for an argument in our field, convincing the audience of the impossible to convince, through nothing more than evidence, credibility, and appeals to emotion.