Revised Introduction

Schurz, Carl, "The New South - Introduction" 2014 via Wikipedia Commons, CC0 License  

In this post, I revised (totally changed) the introduction that I produced for my rough draft. I found this introduction to be a drastic improvement to my previous one. It is still in the same basic format, but now there is more of a link between my thesis and my topic sentence, and there is more inclusion of the rhetorical situation. I also did not mention the effectiveness of my author's argument in my first introduction, whereas in my revised introduction, I did! Overall I found the process of scrapping my first intro VERY helpful, otherwise I would have just changed a few words and called it a day.

Old introduction: 

"What do Neuroscience and Gender Equality have in common? Neither are to be taken lightly. In the field of Neuroscience, it is easiest to convince your readers of an argument you are passionate about when you are seen as a credible and factual source, before providing your audience with the passionate, dramatic appeal to emotion that will help convince them on moral grounds, especially when the two conflicting subjects have such high moral and cultural implications. This is why Dr. Larry Cahill, in his  2014 article "Equal =/= The Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain", employs strategies such as personal stories and expertise, as well as a dramatic tone implying annoyance with the current situation to effectively convince the reader through an appeal to both emotion and credibility of his argument. Cahill also includes use of historical and relevant evidence and statistics to provide context for the reader, helping him gain credibility and therefore agreeability even more."

New Introduction:

"Neuroscientists consistently make the seemingly sexist claim that men and women are inherently different. Dr. Larry Cahill insists they aren't wrong, and that ignoring the science behind these claims can be dangerous. Let's Clarify: Cahill is not a self-proclaimed sexist. In fact, Cahill believes strongly in the political and social equality of the sexes, just not the biological equality. In the field of neuroscience, containing controversies such as these, it is hard to make an argument that everyone will agree with, despite the obvious factual evidence a neuroscientist may be able to provide. The issue to overcome when writing your argument is convincing your audience that you are someone worth listening to, and that the cultural and moral implications, as well as the evidence, on your side of the argument surpasses that of the other side of the argument in the long run. This is why Dr. Larry Cahill, in his 2014 article "Equal =/= The Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain", employs strategies such as describing personal stories and his scientific expertise, as well as using a dramatic tone implying impatience and frustration with the current situation to convince the reader through an appeal to the audience's interest in both Cahill's emotional reaction and his credibility in his community. Cahill also includes use of historical and relevant evidence from credible sources to provide the context of the purpose behind his argument, helping him gain credibility and therefore agreeability even more.