Revised Introduction

I will rewrite my introduction in this blog post.

Kalel007 "Orange Icon Edit" 3/2/09 via Wikipedia. Public Domain.

My revised version is better than the first because it addresses the prompt better. I think I could still use the original if I get rid of the thesis at the end of my revised and replace it with a transition. My original has good information on the context of the article that I want to keep but it doesn't answer the prompt very well. My revised is far from perfect and it needs work but it's certainly a better start than my original.

Original

Animal testing has long been used to determine the usefulness of a developing drug and test for unwanted side effects. In order to test for the widest range of possible side effects, many animals are tested on and frequently killed in the process. This calls attention to the humanity, or lack thereof, of animal testing. Many have voiced their opinion and published pieces both for and against animal testing. Although animal testing has yielded effective drugs, the article “Of Mice or Men” by Arthur Allen uses historical evidence and experts’ studies to prove that testing does not produce useful and effective results frequently enough to justify the life cost.

Revised

In a world full of opposing viewpoints, people need to find a way to be more effective than others to get their point across. The main forms of arguments are appeal to logic, appeal to emotion, and appeal to credibility. Some forms of arguments appeal more to different backgrounds and professions than others. Engineering is no exception. This is the field of study that is widely accepted as geeky and unfeeling, totally logical. To create an effective argument for an engineer, one must construct an argument very carefully, using only facts. The article "Of Mice or Men" by Arthur Allen is a prime example of this. He uses acknowledgement and refutation of counterarguments, historical evidence, and experts' studies to form an argument that appeals to engineers.