Revised Conclusion

In this post, I will include my new and improved conclusion and explain some of the ways that I changed it from the original.

Wacker, Michael, "No way out!" 1/19/2015 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

The main difference between my original and my new and improved conclusion is my attempt at circling back to my intro in my new conclusion. My first draft of my conclusion, answered the "so what" question in great detail, and since I feel like this is crucial for a good concluding paragraph, I included this aspect into my conclusion again, but in a different way. Totally getting rid of the "so what" approach to my conclusion would add and undue amount of work because I would have to reincorporate this aspect of my conclusion into my final draft either way.

Original Conclusion:

Based on all of the analysis above, it is evident that in the article “How legalizing pot could save America’s economy” S.E. Smith employs shocking statistics, historical data, and humor, in order to appeal to popular American beliefs and values, and prove that marijuana should be legalized. One might be surprised by Smith’s approach to writing this article, due to the fact that he or she might assume that a piece of writing that is primarily geared to represent the economic benefits of legalization would not focus so greatly on appealing to its readers’ emotions. However, that individual must realize that an effective piece of writing, not just in business, but in any field, must appeal to several aspects of a reader’s mind. Businesspeople do in fact tend to appreciate numbers and logic. But, if a person’s argument to a crowd of people, even ones in the business world, only contains facts and numbers that appeal to their audience’s logic, and does not address their emotional or ethical beliefs, then the audience will not respond well to the argument's overall purpose. Thus, in order for Smith’s argument about the economic effectiveness of legalization, she was also required to discuss the moral speculation surrounding the topic.

New and Improved Conclusion:

It is quite apparent from all of the analysis in the previous paragraphs of this essay that it isn't as easy as a simple yes or no answer when it comes to answering the questions posed in the introduction of this essay. S.E Smith utilizes several rhetorical strategies that illustrate the idea that decisions cannot be made from strictly economic or moral reasoning. Smith uses a variety of rhetorical strategies ranging from humor, to historical data, to shocking statistics, to appeal to several common American beliefs. One might wonder why Smith, who is attempting to make her readers supporters of marijuana legalization, from an economic perspective, must also attract her audience to the approval of cannabis by appealing to their moral reasoning. However, he or she must acknowledge the fact that even when individuals, such as businesspeople, tend to make decisions based on logic and facts, must also be persuaded from an emotional aspect as well, in order to get a well-rounded representation of the issue.