example intro revision

An on-going issue in our society is the question of whether or not same-sex marriage is appropriate and acceptable. In 2004, an article was published on behalf of this affair by an author known as Heather Ann Gannon. This work is titled ?Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Allowed,? and that in itself offers a direct portrayal of her opinion on the matter. Through this directly informative essay, Gannon goes about her actual persuasion with a more indirect attack on opposing arguments, especially utilizing a unique organization of ideas as well as a sarcastic yet subtle ridicule towards real and hypothetical situations regarding marriage. This introduction seems to offer evidence of utilizing a ?review of controversy? type approach. It immediately mentions an issue of debate, if only briefly and without elaboration on the opposing view points. The rest of the introduction offers brief background info of the article that is about to be analyzed, and the introductory paragraph is put to a close with a clearly written thesis of the rhetoric. "A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?" The anonymous quote is a question that is a clear attack on an on-going issue in our society. This is the examination of whether or not same-sex marriage is appropriate and acceptable. Throughout the span of the debate, three main arguments have risen in order to define gay marriage as an unacceptable concept. Those points include the religious, the historical, and the procreation arguments. In 2004, an article was published on behalf of this affair by an author known as Heather Ann Gannon. This work is titled ?Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Allowed,? and that in itself offers a direct portrayal of her opinion on the matter. Through this directly informative essay, Gannon goes about her actual persuasion of her perspective with a more indirect attack on the three opposing arguments, especially utilizing a unique organization of ideas as well as a sarcastic yet subtle ridicule situations regarding marriage. This introduction has many revisions derived from the former introduction from the draft 1.1. While the essay itself still analyzes an issue of controversy, the introduction now uses the approach of a quote provided by an anonymous source. The quote does not literally give a direct position on the debate of same-sex marriages, but the sarcasm in what the question offers is so apparent that an opinion can be inferred. It is obvious that the ridiculousness of rejection toward gay marriage is going to be the focus of the paper. This also acts as a strong point for the rest of the analysis for the fact that ?ridicule? itself is a rhetorical element included in the thesis. This device now acts as a theme for the introduction from start to finish, foreshadowing its presence in the rest of the paper. The thesis has been revised in order to offer more information about the article itself by recognizing the three main arguments discussed by the author. This lets the thesis itself be more clear on what it is addressing. Overall, the revised introduction seems to grab the attention of the reader with the quote/question approach. This paragraph also seems to be more interesting, which in return not only keeps the paper flowing, but may make the audience want to keep reading.