Revised Conclusion

In the post below I have published two versions of my conclusion and identified which one serves as a more effective closer.


The Original Conclusion

Murphy effectively uses stimulating elements, such as music, and expert opinions to explain why geoengineering is dangerous. His approach is simplistic, focusing heavily on the emotional responses, but the way he conducts himself really amps up the tension. The audience trusts him and believes him because he has shown that he has reputable sources and that he cares about the well-being of the planet and the environment.

The Revised Conclusion

As society continues to realize the diminishing state of the environment and the resulting impacts, they will begin to look for quick ways to mitigate climate change. It will be the scientific and engineering communities who must rationalize with the panicked public through the publications of their studies. By effectively connecting to the beliefs and values of the public and presenting information in an easy to understand manner, much like Murphy has done, together they can reshape the world. Whether it will be for the better or the worse only time can tell.



When compared to my original conclusion, this revised version is much more effective. Rather than simply restating the thesis, I have attempted to answer why the documentary is an important example in my field. One thing I still need to correct is using only one of the conclusion strategies discussed in the book, as I have mixed the "so what" question with the looking forward. Even so, this version is still more effective than the original and does a better job at closing out the paper.

Baur, Seth. "DSC_0194". July 25, 2008 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License