Your Name: Madisen Lindekens
Speaker's Name: Grant
Speaker's Topic: The Agricultural Bio-tech company- Monsanto
Did the speaker initially get your attention? How?
Yes. You did a great job of getting the audiences attention by having us imagine a scenario:
Where a corporate giant, that operates in over 130 countries throughout the world, controls most of the agriculrutal sales in the United States. This same company has friends inside the government that it works under, that conrol the food regulation of its own products (aka, Monsanto).
What was your interpretation of the speaker’s initial credibility? How did the speaker establish credibility?
Possibly consider including more references within your speech. It is hard to build credibility when your audience does not know where you are getting your information from.
As far as your sources went, I noticed you mentioned a quote from Monsanto’s website, which I would assume to be Monsanto.com, as well as a study from the Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal. Well done on tying those into your speech.
What was this speaker’s thesis statement and what were his or her 2-3 main points?
I was a bit unclear about what your thesis was. From what I could tell, your purpose was to give us this information so as an audience, we could then make our own, individual decisions as to whether or not Monsanto should be trusted or not.
The main points I gathered were: 1. The history of the company, 2. Monsantos position on GMO products, 3. A recent study done in Spain on GMO’s, and 4. Monsantos employees and the revolving door policy with positions in our government.
What was the speaker trying to persuade the audience to do/think?
This was not clear to me. It seemed as if you were alluding to the fact that this company should not be trusted, though you worded your purpose in such a way that made it seem as if you had not necessarily chosen a stance on this topic, or that you were not revelaing your stance on the issue, but instead were giving us information to make our own decision on the issue.
Did the speaker have a clear and organized flow to their speech? Were there smooth transitions? What could have been done to improve organization and flow?
Yes, chronological flow by date. 1900’s to 2000’s (for the most part).
Additionally, transitions were smooth for the most part. The phrases you used, such as “lets take a look at ……” made it clear that you were transtioning within your speech, and provided a nice preview of what you were going to begin to discuss. Well done.
What was effective about the conclusion? Is there anything that could have been done to improve the conclusion?
You stated the points that were covered, which seemed to be more informative rather than persuasive, and then motivated the audeience to draw their own conclusion and to be skeptical on whether or not Monsanto is a company we can trust, and whether or not GMO’S are actually things that are safe for you.
You specifically said to “maintain suspicions,” which makes this your purpose, though I think in order to improve your conclusion, you could have clearly stated your stance on the issue, and then explained why we should feel the same