Revised Conclusion

In this blog post, I will do the same thing I did with the previous blog post, except with my conclusion. I will rewrite the conclusion section of project 2 and explain why the new version is superior to the original.

Once again, I would not say the revised conclusion is stricly superior to the original version. However, the revised version does answer the question of "So What?" more effectively. I explicitly tell the reader how they should apply what they have just read in both versions, but the new version is more effective.

Screenshot from my computer, 10/17/15 

Original:

To conclude, a computer science argument needs many elements to persuade the audience. Humor, appeals to logic, and metaphors are just a few of those crucial elements. Partovi might consider reading this guide to computer science rhetoric before writing his next speech. Each of you new computer science students should keep this guide in mind as well. Never overlook these elements in computer science rhetoric that you consume, and especially do not overlook them when writing your own arguments in the field of computer science.

Revised:

While Partovi's TEDx talk was far from the ideal emobidement of computer science rhetoric, Partovi's speech had many of the rhetorical elements commonly found in computer science arguments. Partovi's attempts at logical appeal via statistics, appeals to his own skills as a computer scientist, and use of metaphors to explain central ideas are all standard when constructing an arguement within this field. When consuming the latest arguments within computer science, refer back to this guide. More importantly, remember this guide when you write your own arguments down the road.