Joe gave a very informative and interesting speech about the process of brewing beer. This was a unique topic, and something most people- even non-avid drinkers such as myself, were intrigued by. Through out the speech, Joe presented an average level of ethos. Joe only seemed to mention one credible source, a book by the name of: How to Brew: Everything You Need To Know To Brew Beer Right The First Time by John Palmer. He mentioned this same source in the body of all three of his points; however, this was not much of a surprise to me because right in the beginning he clearly stated that this book was interpreted as the “brew bible” to him, therefore, maybe he felt as if he needed no other sources. Also, although Joe gave very distinct directions …show more content…
There was a clear cut attention getter, which lead into his thesis, preview, and so on. His three points were presented in a sequential order: the mashing, the boiling, and lastly the fermentation. This is something I am sure the audience appreciated as sometimes it is harder to inform others on a recipe or process out of the specific order it happens in. The sequential order provides not only for better structure and comprehension of what the speaker is talking about, but also it is proven to show higher retention in the audience after the speaker has finished talking; this I would know as I too, had my informative speech on a recipe in a sequential order. Again, Joe did a clear cut job of explaining the distinct directions in the process and also avoided any unneeded jargon in his speech. Overall, I feel like Joe’s informative speech was good, it just needed work on the specifics I mentioned in the former and most particularly the ethos portion of the speech. I hope Joe reads this critique essay and truly sees why I mentioned the things I did which I believe need improvement, and also understands that this is just how I, an audience member, perceived the speech to be. I look forward to hearing the rest of Joe’s speeches in future
Activity theory, as interpreted by Ph.D. candidates, Wardle and Kain, is a process that attempts to see all aspects of activity such as social interactions and use of writing and language to achieve goals. This theory is award winning. Activity theory states that for a system to be effective, the rules, community, subject, division of labor, and motives must be reasonable. These components are shown through the chosen tool of communication most often. When one area of the system is corrupted, the tool will no longer function correctly in order to communicate or achieve its goals.
My written Analysis is on my Brother in law, Roderic Coffee, who wrote and presented a tribute to his Dad, my father-in-law at his home going service. Roderic was a very captivating speaker, he used many references regarding my father in laws love for learning and education. He started off his talk with a proverb that was related to my father in law and to Dr. Martin Luther King regarding knowledge and its value... Although his tribute was personal, he did very good in his presentation. Roderic made direct eye contact with his audience often and he was very poised, and his pace was great.
For my final project of the semester, Project 4, I decided to revise my rhetorical analysis of project 2. I took your comments and feedback very solemnly, to avail further my inditement. I understood the feedback consummately, and optically discerned precisely what I needed to do. The main thing I wanted to fixate on was understanding that the paper was filled with many conceptions, and constructing it down to precise conceptions, and expounding them exhaustively. I abstracted some conceptions that I believe that weren’t apart of the process of explicating the argument or how it works.
"Common Sense" was one of the most important pieces of literature in early America, because it was extremely influential to many people throughout all of American colonies. The colonist came to America to escape religious boundaries. They wanted to be able to worship God freely. Thomas Paine uses this to his advantage by using scriptural quotes, pathos, to convince his audience that it is common sense for the colonists to break completely with Great Britain. He says that "a monarchy is terrible, and to have a king is not only an unsuccessful way to rule a nation, but it is also a sin."
He had a smile on the entire time and made sure to emphasize his passion for this subject. His posture was good but at certain parts throughout the speech you can see him start to slouch, making it slightly less professional, but overall it was good. His expressions were very animated but not over the top, just watching his face you could tell the way he felt about each thing he spoke on, I think this was also one of the best parts of his speech. As
He used effective reasons and ways which makes this speech one of the
On a personal level, i think asking someone about how white bread makes them feel is very odd. Just as the man in the video felt when he was asked if white bread consumption brought on feelings of loneliness. Looking at it from the perspective of the company however, asking a question like this makes sense. No one wants to be the brand of bread that is associated with lonely, or furthermore a more descriptive adjective such as dissatisfied. So using a technique such as this to isolate the feeling consumers have about their product is very important.
Given that he spoke for the American people, he implies that as a nation, we have had to make some difficult choices, but, yet we make those decisions with courage and determination that keeps us united. This is one of the many points that highlights his speech. Giving positive and strong statements adds strength to his speech which keeps his audience occupied with his words. Hence, it is very important that audience is listening and comprehending what is being
The following essay is a rhetorical analysis of the 2018 Budweiser Super Bowl commercial. The advertisement was in response to the recent natural disasters in Florida, Texas, California, and Puerto Rico. These hurricanes and floods can pollute the water and destroy water infrastructures. The commercial shows the Cartersville brewery workers converting their beer cans into water to ship out to cities in need. The brand strategically tries appealing to the majority of the U.S. population who watches the Super Bowl.
Past leaders such as Andrew Jackson, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Marc Antony are evidence that society does not reward morality and good character in leadership. Society is drawn to leaders that have good rhetoric, propaganda, and charismatic personalities, and society supports them despite their immorality. Society is concerned about stability more than the morality of their leaders and will support immoral leaders in times of crisis to provide stability. In history there have been multiple leaders that have used rhetoric, propaganda and charismatic personalities to gain power, despite their morals.
I’m fairly confident that I at the very least passed the test with a 3, maybe even a 4. I think that I did as well as I usually do on multiple choice, which hopefully means that I got more than half of them right, but there were more than a few questions that I had trouble with and I ended up not being very confident with my answers for them, however on the whole I think I did alright. For the essays, I spent WAY too much time on the DBQ (I went into the rhetorical analysis time in order to finish it) and I didn’t do a very good time synthesising and using the sources. I’m fairly certain that I answered the prompt thoroughly, but I relied too much on outside information and didn’t use many quotes from the sources. For the rhetorical analysis,
This speech is also not effective to me because his speech was hard to understand and it did not keep my attention. It was not direct to the point and it didn’t use a typical everyday vocabulary an 8th grader would use . But, if I were an older person I would maybe, reconsider saying it was too hard to understand . Another negative about his speech was that many people weren’t coming together to make the constitution better .
It is often meaningless to evaluate a speech without first considering its context and purposes. As Dr. Blizer pointed out, “a work of rhetoric is pragmatic; it comes into existence for the sake of something beyond itself; it functions ultimately to produce action or change in the world”.1 Jobs’ speech was no exception – its basic function as a commencement speech was ceremonial by nature. Compared to other ceremonial speeches such as a testimonial or an inaugural address, a commencement speech is less restricted in terms of topic. It is, however, bound by the occasion and
Did they have a PREVIEW? Do they use any CITATIONS? What were the MAIN POINTS in the speech? HOW was the speaker’s CONCLUSION EFFECTIVE or not?
These aspects of his speech appealed to ethos which persuades people into putting their trust into him, since his statements have shown that he is a credible