Revised Conclusion

In the following post, I will revise my conclusion.

My new conclusion is better because it has a bit more substance to it. I was just trying to put words on paper before, but now I have a bit more composition and structure to my conclusion. I mention the rhetorical strategies used and address my audience ( people in my field) when I say this is a good example of an article to take an analysis of.

Burgos, Nate. "Project detail: Writing." 10/10/2012 via Flickr.
Attribution No-Derivs 2.0 Generic License. 

Old: The rhetorical strategies that my author uses are effective and manage to achieve her goal: to convince the audience to get tested for the BRCA gene mutation. Getting tested for the gene would change the type a treatment that a person would receive to target the prevention of cancer returning. This would save the diagnosed person a lot of pain.

New: Through the use of Wurtzel's ethical and emotional appeals, specifically thorugh her use of a personal narrative, her overall tone, and her true reputation, she effectively convinces the reader to go get tested for the BRCA gene mutation. The test has the power to save lives because it can tailor a medical approach in such a way that it would make it difficult for cancer to return with a vengeance. The rhetorical strategies used above make this article a good example of an article to perform a rhetorical analysis of, and give an idea as to how and why the science field writes about certain topics.