Sunday, October 18, 2015

8.5 Revised Conclusion.

I think that the new conclusion is better because it has an anecdote at the end that "looks forward" and  "paints a picture". I also summarized the claims of my rhetorical analysis. Which helped answer the "so what".

Old Version:

Although Mansuripur's work was met with much criticism, he held a noble stance as heand responded cordially and did his best to further explain his findings to clarify any misconceptions.[5] However, one must be reminded that even well-known scientists with credibility have been wrong and may have even hinder progress due to incorrect statements. For example, Sir Isaac Newton incorrectly hypothesized that chromatic aberration could not be corrected. As a result, many optical lens designers refrained from investigating solutions to this optical limitation.

New Version:

Although Mansuripur's work was met with much criticism, he held a noble stance as he responded cordially and did his best to further explain his findings to clarify any misconceptions.[5] Mansuripur's paper utilized credibility with references, math proof, and publishing through a well known journal. He also did well in his organization, presentation, and logic. However, one must be reminded that even well-known scientists with credibility have been wrong and may have even hinder progress due to incorrect statements. For example, Sir Isaac Newton incorrectly hypothesized chromatic aberration could not be corrected land light was a particle in 1703 . As a result, Dolland, an optical lens designer, found a solution to chromatic aberration decades later and Fresnel, a civil engineer, mathematically proved that light could be modeled as a wave more that 100 years later [7].


1 comment:

  1. The active verbs you added really fit well in your introduction. I had commented on your draft and suggested you to work on the thesis, this definitely strengthens your thesis well.

    ReplyDelete