{"id":533,"date":"2018-03-02T22:47:48","date_gmt":"2018-03-02T22:47:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.ryerson.ca\/writehere\/?post_type=chapter&p=533"},"modified":"2018-07-12T18:37:53","modified_gmt":"2018-07-12T18:37:53","slug":"writing-your-conclusion","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/chapter\/writing-your-conclusion\/","title":{"raw":"Writing Your Conclusion","rendered":"Writing Your Conclusion"},"content":{"raw":"\"Goldfish.\"\r\n\r\nThe common belief that goldfish have three-second memories is most likely a myth, but the metaphor still works for describing the problematic repetition inherent in the five-paragraph essay. It is highly unlikely you will be writing for goldfish at any point in your scholarly career, and it is equally unlikely \u00a0that readers of your work will possess three-second memories. Your readers do not need to be reminded repeatedly of your essay\u2019s focus and purpose.\r\n\r\nThe audience of your midterm essay, similar to the audience of \u00a0our analysis of \u201cThe Ultimate Communications App<\/a>,\u201d will certainly not need to be reminded of your thesis in your conclusion\u2014they will not have forgotten it since reading your introduction. This type of essay \u00a0simply isn\u2019t long enough for the focused reader to forget its purpose. Nor do you have the space in a short essay such as this one to repeat your thesis at the expense of examining different aspects of the text under analysis. Rather than treating your conclusion as if it is a return to your thesis, consider it as a final questioning and presentation of your thesis from the new position you have arrived at through your analysis.\r\n\r\nYour thesis identified a focus (first storey) and built an interpretive claim (second storey) around that focus with an eye to making a final claim about what text is really<\/em> doing. In your conclusion, you have \u00a0arrived at the point where you can confidently make your final \u00a0claim about the entire text. Essentially, your conclusion should justify your particular reading and make a final declaration on the benefit and consequence of discussing the text in the way you have. Remember that you are inviting others to discuss and debate this text with you, so your conclusion is not intended to shut down all future conversation on the essay, nor is it a final proclamation of your reading as the \u201cright\u201d and \u201conly\u201d reading of the text. While you do not want to end your essay with an arms-in-the-air disavowal of everything you have done or a pleading \u201cWhat do you think?\u201d to your readers, you do want your readers to consider the implications of your reading of this text upon their understanding of it. You want your readers to recognize your interpretation as a valuable contribution to the ongoing scholarly conversation.\r\n\r\nIn many ways, your conclusion is your own assessment of the writing you have completed to this point. You cannot write a conclusion without first reassessing your essay as it now stands. For the purposes of demonstration, let\u2019s review our analytical essay-in-progress on Justice\u2019s \u201cThe Ultimate Communications App\u201d and determine exactly what we have left to say.\r\n\r\n\"Draft","rendered":"

\"Goldfish.\"<\/p>\n

The common belief that goldfish have three-second memories is most likely a myth, but the metaphor still works for describing the problematic repetition inherent in the five-paragraph essay. It is highly unlikely you will be writing for goldfish at any point in your scholarly career, and it is equally unlikely \u00a0that readers of your work will possess three-second memories. Your readers do not need to be reminded repeatedly of your essay\u2019s focus and purpose.<\/p>\n

The audience of your midterm essay, similar to the audience of \u00a0our analysis of \u201cThe Ultimate Communications App<\/a>,\u201d will certainly not need to be reminded of your thesis in your conclusion\u2014they will not have forgotten it since reading your introduction. This type of essay \u00a0simply isn\u2019t long enough for the focused reader to forget its purpose. Nor do you have the space in a short essay such as this one to repeat your thesis at the expense of examining different aspects of the text under analysis. Rather than treating your conclusion as if it is a return to your thesis, consider it as a final questioning and presentation of your thesis from the new position you have arrived at through your analysis.<\/p>\n

Your thesis identified a focus (first storey) and built an interpretive claim (second storey) around that focus with an eye to making a final claim about what text is really<\/em> doing. In your conclusion, you have \u00a0arrived at the point where you can confidently make your final \u00a0claim about the entire text. Essentially, your conclusion should justify your particular reading and make a final declaration on the benefit and consequence of discussing the text in the way you have. Remember that you are inviting others to discuss and debate this text with you, so your conclusion is not intended to shut down all future conversation on the essay, nor is it a final proclamation of your reading as the \u201cright\u201d and \u201conly\u201d reading of the text. While you do not want to end your essay with an arms-in-the-air disavowal of everything you have done or a pleading \u201cWhat do you think?\u201d to your readers, you do want your readers to consider the implications of your reading of this text upon their understanding of it. You want your readers to recognize your interpretation as a valuable contribution to the ongoing scholarly conversation.<\/p>\n

In many ways, your conclusion is your own assessment of the writing you have completed to this point. You cannot write a conclusion without first reassessing your essay as it now stands. For the purposes of demonstration, let\u2019s review our analytical essay-in-progress on Justice\u2019s \u201cThe Ultimate Communications App\u201d and determine exactly what we have left to say.<\/p>\n

\"Draft<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"menu_order":6,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-533","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":191,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/533","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/533\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1928,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/533\/revisions\/1928"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/191"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/533\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=533"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=533"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}