Revised Introduction

In the following blog post I will be completely reconstructing the introduction of my rhetorical analysis by following the tips provided by the A Student's Guide reading. I will also evaluate the changes that I've made and how they make my introduction stronger.

My new introduction has a much stronger hook and is substantially less dry than my first draft. It is more fluid in providing context without throwing in unnecessary details that I will later include in my essay. I also revised the thesis to make it slightly more fluid and inclusive of the rhetorical situation.

Original Introduction

In the teetering political environment of today, liberals and conservatives are frequently at each other's throats regarding any legislation suggested by either side. The matter is no different when it comes to the education system and its laws.  In an essay published in The Washington Post, entitled “Arne Duncan blasts House effort to revise No Child Left Behind”, in response to the education stalemate between Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and House Republicans, the readers get a glimpse at the different political opinions surrounding education reform efforts. The author of the essay, Emma Brown, devotes most of her time to either describing impressive and frightening financial statistics surrounding underprivileged and minority-heavy school districts or analyzing the opinions of different politicians regarding the impact of suggested legislation such as Title 1 Probability.
In her analysis of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's responses to Republican education efforts and a press statement from Duncan regarding school funding inequality, Emma Brown refers to credible sources to enhance her own credibility and compelling statistics to dramatize the potential detriments of Republican legislation, tying it all together with passionate and critical word choice of the entire situation. With the combination of these strategies, Brown argues that the situation is at an impractical standstill, with both sides falling short of doing right by students and schools.

Revised Introduction

Political parties hardly ever fail to find an area of inequality to debate about in todays society. With the renewal of No Child Left Behind, it is education that is now in the political inequality spotlight. Numerous reform attempts have been made by both parties to reform the flawed school system, but these attempts have only opened the flood gates to harsh criticisms of funding and racial inequality among school districts. In an article published on The Washington Post entitled "Arne Duncan Blasts House Efforts to Revise No Child Left Behind", the typically liberal audience gets a glimpse at the faults of both parties. The author, Emma Brown, spares no one in her criticism of preposed conservative legislation, which will undoubtably harm minority-heavy districts as well as democrat Arne Duncan's stagnant behavior in his position of power. Both criticisms are made in the name of students and teachers, who Brown believes should be the primary concern in education reform. In her analysis of Republican education funding reform efforts and Democratic Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's response to these efforts, Brown refers to credible sources to enhance her own credibility and compelling statistics to dramatize the potential detriments of Republican legislation, tying it all together with passionate and critical word choice of the entire situation to fuel the passion of her audience. With the combination of these strategies, Brown argues that the situation is at an impractical standstill, with both sides falling short of doing right by students and schools, which should be the true forces of reform efforts. 

Moran, Nick, "Early Bird", 3/8/08 via Flickr.com