Speech Analysis
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Western University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2001
Subject
Arts Humanities
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by KidLlama3905
1. What is the topic and the speaker’s rhetorical purpose/aim? In full sentences,
briefly outline the major claims (Chapter 25) that support the thesis.
The speaker’s topic is a new technique to being a vegetatarian. The purpose of this
speech is to show the audience a new method to meat intake that is better for the
environment, and personal health. On this matter he makes a few major claims that
strengthen his thesis. He mentions that in the past there have only ever been two
options, meat-eater or vegitarian. By showing these limited and strict options, he is in
turn making his less strict combination method much more appealing. He uses facts on
health and the environment to further strengthen his argument. Starting with a simple
fact that one hamburger a day can increase risk of dying by a 3
rd
. The fear of death can
immediately play onto some audience members to sway them. He also brings up the
fact that we as a society are using twice as much meat as in the 50’s, and the
environmental effects that come with it. Meat uses 100x more water than most
vegetables and causes more carbon emissions than all of transportation combined.
Using health and environment as his two main causes to make the switch, he has used
strong claims to support his thesis.
2. Using Chapter 8, identify the supporting materials, and briefly explain how at
least 3 advance the argument. Do not simply list the types: specify with
explanation. e.g., the speaker provides an anecdote about an exchange with [….].
This anecdote concretizes the point that […]; the speaker analogizes [X] to [Y];
both extended and hypothetical scientific examples […]. These comparisons
support the claim that […]
The speaker provides a list of benefits from taking on his “Weekday Veg” program. He
begins by stressing the struggle of the previous binary options of dieting. Simply being
stuck between either full vegitarian or continuing to eat meat. He calls upon the
audience to imagine their last hamburger. In doing so he is not only putting the option of
being a vegitarian down but also making his option look much more incentivizing. The
thought of completely cutting out meat causes us to continously procrastinate becoming
a vegitarian, his method treats that issue. He also uses the benefits of doing his
program as supporting materials for his thesis. He has lowered his carbon footprint,
pollution, he’s saving money, feels healthier, statistically will live longer, and even lost
some weight. By doing this he is stating the clear advantages that come from “Weekday
Veg.” This can sway audience members who may be on the fence looking for that last
push over to the vegitarian side. For many, the prospect of savings, increased health
and life expectancy and possible weight loss is already enough. He also calls onto
those who feels strongly towards the environment, he mentions that he has already
made his carbon footprint smaller and lessened his output of pollution. Another
supporting material he used was explaining that “WeekdayVeg” is structured and simple
to remember. This is a huge selling point on the effectiveness of his method. Many
struggles with the consistency of maintaining a diet that requires focus and attention to
detail, but he simply says, “nothing with a face Monday through Friday, and on the
weekend, it's up to you.” A simple to remember, structured system is great for
integrating the system into people's lives.
3. What does the speaker assume about the audience’s
shared
political beliefs
and/or core values? That is, what common ground does the speaker use? Be
specific (beliefs about Church/State, egalitarianism, racism, homophobia,
violence, marriage, the environment, health, etc.) and provide examples.
He begins his speech by playing into the typical stereotypes that are associated with
vegetarians. Saying his parents were hippies and he’s green. He also goes on to say
that he has started a site called “Tree Hugger.” He plays into the assumed stereotypical
thought of the audience. In doing so he is able to categorize himself into someone who
is thought to be caring towards the environment and animals. By doing this he
establishes himself as a trustworthy source on the matter creating an increased sense
of validity to what he has to say. The speaker also assumes the accepted standard of
care towards animals of the audience. He ties it into the matter of animal cruelty,
something most people are strongly against. He says that 10 billion animals a year are
raised for meat production in farm conditions that we wouldn’t even consider acceptable
for our own cats, dogs, and other pets. He safely assumes the conditions of the
slaughterhouse are not to be deemed acceptable by the audience for that of their own
pets. He is not only strengthening the weight of his cruelty argument, he is also shining
light on the meat production factor of the process. He has managed to tie it all together
to relate back to our own pets which then makes it hit much closer to home as the
average person holds a special place in their heart for their beloved pet.
4. What counterarguments or objections did the speaker anticipate (Chapter 25)?
How does the speaker address them?
The speaker anticipates an objection on how strict someone has to be on the diet. To
truly follow the diet as instructed will certainly be a challenge for at least the first month
or so. He says its ok to break it here and there, because after all you are still cutting
70% of your overall meat intake. In addressing this objection, he has not only shown a
viable option but once again reinforced his previous arguments on health and
environment. He also has addressed the thought of people not being interested in red
meat at all but are still interested in other types of meat. He says people can take it one
step further and use sustainably harvested fish instead of the red meat alternative. He
cites red meat as a major culprit for environmental harm and deteriorating health in the
body. Once again he has strengthened his previous arguments on health and
environment by addressing a counter argument. He has tied red meats effects on the
environment and body into a piece on alternatives to red meat. The audience can
become even more swayed by this seeing that the diet is also flexible in what you
actually follow and don’t follow.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help