Revised Introduction

In this post I have linked an essay with my original introduction and I have also linked an version of my essay with my revised introduction. I think the new introduction did a much better job of identifying the rhetorical situation of my text. Also, I was able to rewrite my introduction to make it seem like topic of the essay was to analyze the article, not to debate the article. Also, I am quite happy that my new introduction was able to identify why the rhetorical analysis was important to new students that share my discipline.

OpenClipartVectors. "Arrow Cycle Recycle Red Reuse Red Blue"
10/16/2013 via Pixabay. CCO Public Domain/FAQ. 

Original Introduction:

The oil industry is a booming profit market. Collecting oil can be traced back to 347 A.D. when the first oil well were dug in China. The mModern day oil wells began in 1848 in Asia by F.N Semyenov.⁵ The demand for oil has increased since then and with it increased CO₂ emissions. In order to decrease these harmful emissions, people have been searching for an alternative substance to use, and they decided upon natural gas. The most popular way to extract natural gas isn hydraulic fracking in shale. However, this process has been the topic of many debates. The rising use of fracking has lead to increased concern about the effect that the natural gas collection method has on the environment. The first big concern about fracking was critics claiming that fracking was contaminating the water supply. Recently the focus has shifted to the  In the text, “Why the Scientific Case Against Fracking Keeps Getting Stronger,” Chris Mooney uses an interview with Anthony Ingraffea, a professor at Cornell University, and surprising statistics to convince his audience of political environmentalists that the scientific data is supporting fracking as harmful to the environment. Even with the bias of the author, Mooney is still able to provide a convincing argument on the negative effects of fracking.

Revised Introduction:

Just as important as what is said is how it is said. Engineering is one of many disciplines where the information seems black and white. However, like in design perspective is everything and even the most concrete information can be depicted as gray. One area where Chemical Engineers need to be aware of this deceiving information is in persuasive articles in the field. Authors try to tempt the readers to one side by presenting information that is favorable to their opinion. Being aware of the trickery authors can use, Chemical Engineers can evaluate the credibility of a source. Because non-engineers do not always have the same technical knowledge, a lot of faith is put into the engineer so it is important that engineers are able to distinguish a good source from a bad. Also, if an engineer discovers a problem and wants to implement a change, he or she needs to convince others that the problem is worth fixing. Then, the engineer would need to construct an argument. By dissecting other arguments the engineer can strengthen their own argument and make it appealing. The following evaluation on the argument by Chris Mooney on hydraulic fracking, will show how an argument can be evaluated for its effectiveness. In the text, “Why the Scientific Case Against Fracking Keeps Getting Stronger,” Chris Mooney uses an interview with Anthony Ingraffea, a professor at Cornell University, and surprising statistics to convince political environmentalists that the scientific data favors the argument that fracking is harmful to the environment.