Revised Conclusion

In this blog post I will be creating a new conclusion from scratch. 

Michael, "Finish Line" taken on May 1st, 2011 via Flickr Attribution Generic 2.0

I feel that my new conclusion is better because it puts the article in context in reference to the publisher. It also evaluates why the website would put an article like this on their website. This conclusion also focuses on answering the "so what?" question and putting the whole article and it's arguments in context. 

New: 
Through the well rounded arguments of Pat Yongpradit and Beth Schwartze, ISTE successfully manages to display an issue regarding the field of computer science from both sides of the issue. ISTE provides the reader with two knowledgeable authors who disagree on whether computer science should be taught in elementary schools or not. Both authors use pathos to make the topic more personal to the reader. They also pair logic with authority to make their argument click with the thought process of the readers. ISTE provided two arguments opposing each other in order to allow the reader to pick the side that aligns with their feelings on the issue. By providing both sides of the argument, the reader is learning about all aspects of the issue rather than just one side. ISTE published this article to demonstrate how to properly educate someone on a debatable issue, something that should be done whenever educating someone on an issue. It is important to leave out biases in order for the reader to understand the issue fully and choose their own side on the debate. 

Old:

Both Yongpradit and Schwartze have very valid arguments and use rhetorical strategies to try and persuade the argument. Yongpradit was more effective due to his variety of techniques he used. Schwartze only used logic and authority with some appeal to emotion and audience while Yongpradit used authority, logic, emotion, context, and audience to persuade the audience. It may also be a factor that Yongpradit is arguing with an upper hand while Schwartze is already the underdog in the debate. Most people seem to align with the ideas of Yongpradit, meaning Yongpradit merely has to keep his supporters on his side while Schwartze has to try and convince them to abandon how they originally felt and join her side of the debated topic. ISTE seems to have achieved their purpose of creating a thought provoking article. They provided both sides of the debate, using different authors to illustrate the two sides. Both authors then constructed sound rhetorical arguments, leading the reader to try and understand both sides of the debate.