After watching these two video, I have learned both advantages and drawbacks of speech from them.
Overall, the speaker of the light pollution seems lacking confidence in her speech because she hurriedly read her note without her eyes connecting to her audience. Even though she surprised her audiences that the light pollution is one of most important pollutions affecting our environment and economy, she did not establish a credibility of the light pollution and reliable resources to support her ideas for convincing her audiences.On the other hand, the speaker of the drinking speech is more persuasive than the light pollution’s for three reasons: effective attention getter, the credibility of academic research, and reliable statistic information.First, he well plays as a drunk person to get his audiences attention and to immediately get into his topic-Drinking.Second, he points out of a significant message, “33 percent of all college students now drink primarily to get drunk.That is one out of three of you," from Columbia University to get connection with his audiences. Accordingly, he is doing well in analyzing and adapting his audiences- college students.
Finally, he presents many statistics information from variously reliable institutes to support his ideas.
You make a great point about the pollution video. Courtney did not establish credibility, nor did she use any citations to solidify her assertions about light pollution. In contrast, Matthew did well in presenting his citations. Although, I thought his presentation was a bit dry, he was clear, concise and his credibility was well established by the use of his citations. It was clear that he had done research. Even though he presented some great facts about drinking and driving, I almost felt that it was a bit much. I don’t know… I understand the importance of presenting it, I just began to lose interest after the first 5 min.
ReplyDeleteYou had a very good analysis of both videos. The light pollution girl was lacking confidence and seemed to be nervous or doubting her ability to present the information. Something that I didn't notice, which I am a little ashamed of, is that she didn't really site her information or give credibility like you mentioned. I knew of the information she was speaking about and what she was saying was correct and I just moved on, but looking back over it, if you were not familiar with the topic, you wouldn't know if that's opinion or fact. The drinking guy did mention a ton of statistics, but I almost felt it was to much, maybe not to much but to much all at once. His whole speech seemed like one statistic and people sometimes tune that out.
ReplyDelete