Post History
Rhetorically speaking, your conclusion should not be a mere summing up of arguments already presented. Rather, it should build a rising tide of emotion and conviction to carry your reader irresisti...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2020-01-03T20:41:53Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/30101 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T06:18:26Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/30101 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
by
System
·
2019-12-08T06:18:26Z (almost 5 years ago)
Rhetorically speaking, your conclusion should not be a mere summing up of arguments already presented. Rather, it should build a rising tide of emotion and conviction to carry your reader irresistibly to act as you would have them act. The whole point of communication is to change the reader's behavior. There are no points (except in school) for following the formula. There are only points for the actual effect of your essay. If bringing in a new argument at the end, particularly tying your argument to something the reader already knows and already feels passionately about, can help build to that great crest of conviction you are trying to achieve, then go for it. This is not to say that you should ignore the conventional form entirely, but it is to say that the conventional form is only a form and a convention. It is doubtless based on some valid principles, but slavish adherence to the form seldom brings any work to a resounding crescendo. If the mob needs to hear one more accusation of monstrous villany before they take up their torches and pitchforks and storm the castle, by all means throw it in.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2017-09-05T18:05:23Z (about 7 years ago)
Original score: 0