Revised Introduction

I have been instructed to toss my previous introductions into the wind, and move on to a new and re-imagined introduction. Despite my extreme discomfort with this (I'm sure this is the point, to get us out of our comfort zones), in this post I will be composing my new and (in theory) better introduction paragraph. So goodbye my old introduction, you have been eliminated.

Laila "You are the weakest link, Goodbye"
 08/20/15 via Buzzfeed. 

OLD INTRO

Koko the gorilla has long been hailed as one of the most fascinating studies of animal communication. But is Koko’s skill really all it is made out to be? At one year old, the primate was paired with Penny Patterson, who taught Koko sign language which Patterson claims Koko is able to understand and coherently repeat (Hu 1). However Jane C. Hu points out some important issues with this claim in her 2014 article “What Do Talking Apes Really Tell Us?” At the time of her article’s publishing, the American public was touched by Patterson’s report of Koko’s display of grief when she was informed that her former playmate, actor Robin Williams had passed away. But as an American herself as well as a popular science journalist, Hu uprooted several more likely causes for Koko’s display of emotion. In fact, her overall familiarity with her audience was vital to her construction of a rhetorical argument her audience would relate to. Hu claims that “[a]nimals perceive the emotions of the humans around them, and the anecdotes in the release could easily be evidence that Koko was responding to the sadness she sensed in her human caregivers” (Hu 1). This display of a logical alternative is a way of drawing her audience closer to her point of view. Hu’s disdain for the abstract twisting of Koko’s signs is a show of her American culture, where in today’s modern life there is constant manipulation and corruption in the media, politics, and other aspects of life. In times like these, Americans value full disclosure, but know they likely won’t get it. Hu plays on this fear in her audience, and makes herself out to be the good guy sharing the same values as the audience. In her article "What Do Talking Apes Really Tell Us?", Jane C. Hu emphatically claims Koko the gorilla's communication to be over-exaggerated and shaky at best, and strives to make her audience reanalyze what they have previously been told about Koko's "genius". By providing layers of evidence and playing on the modern American fear of manipulation, Hu effectively convinces her reader that her claims are the logical truth and that their preconceptions were the result of word twisting and human weakness for implausible whimsy.
NEW AND IN THEORY IMPROVED INTRO:

"When you think about Koko the gorilla, what are the first feeling that come to mind? Perhaps admiration for her communication skills? Lovable, and heartwarming? How about bitterness, trickery, and manipulation? These strong negative emotions are not the typical viewpoint of Koko. But in the article "What Do Talking Apes Really Tell Us?", the author Jane C. Hu pulls out all the stops to make sure her audience is embroiled in the latter feelings. When this article was written, Koko's former playmate actor Robin Williams had just passed away. Reports about the famous gorilla's show of grief when she was told this news were being gobbled up by the public, and the heartwarming anecdote charmed the American heart. As a American science journalist with an insight to US culture however, Hu was not convinced. She claimed this widespread misconception of Koko's skills to be merely a result of American whimsy. However it is interesting to see how much rhetoric goes into Hu's argument. As biology majors, it is important to be able to locate and identify rhetorical usages in pieces like this. In doing so, we are able to build up an awareness of rhetorical manipulation in our field, as well as be able to know effective techniques to get our points across in future scientific arguments. In her article, Hu effectively utilizes the knowledge of her American and scientific audience to manipulate them by building onto multiple rhetorical techniques. By providing layers of evidence and playing on the modern American fear of manipulation, Hu effectively strives to convince her reader of the fallacy of Patterson's arguments and Koko's famed communication skills.

I honesty don't feel that this introduction is stronger. I think aspects of it are, like how I explicitly addressed the audience. I think this really helped with the issues I was having with inviting the reader in and making them care about the paper. I tried to experiment and get out of my comfort zone by starting off the paper with some rhetorical questions. This is something I would have likely been flogged for in high school, so it was difficult for me. But I can see how it could be an effective way of inviting the reader into the paper and provoking thought. I also tried to add some imagery in the questions with the connotative words and shock factor. I really really tried to re=imagine my thesis, but the other one just kept calling to me. I rearranged it and took out a few parts, but I feel like my first one was still better.