Revised Conclusion

New Conclusion

       Throughout Dennis Overbye's use of statistical information, professional insights, and appeals to emotion he successfully argued that NASA's budget cuts have severely affected scientist and their projects. His use of rhetorical strategies helped grasp the audiences attention to understand and relate to his opinion on the issue. NASA still goes through budget cuts today. NASA needs funds towards projects that will lead our society to better technology and a better understanding of our universe.

Old Conclusion 

The NASA budget cuts was an event that still prolongs today but not as drastically as this event. However, this one event is still effecting projects that should have been in the process. It was a decision that hurt many scientists careers and students up an coming futures. The way that Dennis Overbye used his rhetorical strategies to establish credibility in his argument, helped express his message that these budget cuts put a halt on future technology and future discoveries. He portrayed the context of the situation in an easy well organized manner, persuading his audience that these budgets should be more carefully thought through because they are extremely detrimental to NASA and the science community.

My new conclusion is significantly better than my first one because it follows the same format as my introduction but vice a versa. It talks about the major claims and how they successfully helped the authors argument. Then it wraps it all up and ends the essay with an outside picture. It is more clear and it doesn't restate any points like the second conclusion does.