Instructions: Watch each video below and evaluate how well the presenter in the video follows each of the rules from Chapter IX.
Sample Exercise
Source: Steve Forbes, "Elections and the Credit Crisis," FORA.tv, 2008, http://fora.tv/2008/08/07/Steve_Forbes_Elections_and_the_Credit_Crisis
The presenter does a fairly good job following the rules from Chapter IX. He engages the audience's interest (Rule 40) by comparing the length of the US tax code to the length of the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, and the Gettysburg Address. Although he remains behind a podium, he looks around at his audience and communicates in a lively way (Rule 41). He does not do any signposting along the way(Rule 42), but this is not a huge problem in a short presentation that presents a single, easy-to-follow train of thought. He offers a positive alternative (Rule 43) to the current tax code in the form of a flat tax. The presentation might have benefited from a simple visual aid (Rule 44) highlighting the key points of his tax proposal. The video of his presentation, at least, ends on a pithy rhetorical note (Rule 45) about how his proposal is "working in the real world."
This response walks through the rules from this chapter systematically. It cites specific details about the presentation in explaining how the argument follows or violates each rule. With respect to the only rule that the presenter clearly violates, the response indicates how much of a problem this is. With respect to a rule on which the presenter could have done a better job—namely, Rule 44 on visual aids—the response offers a specific suggestion for how to improve the presentation.
Notice that the response does not attempt to evaluate the presenter's argument itself using, e.g., the rules from Chapter I. The response focuses only on how well the speaker does in presenting that argument orally.
1
Source: Neil DeGrasse Tyson, "The Next Great Scientific Breakthrough," YouTube, Feb 20, 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjY0vqgDMnE
2
Source: Sunni Brown, "Doodlers, Unite!," TED.com, Mar 2011, https://www.ted.com/talks/sunni_brown
3
Source: Drug Policy Alliance, "Why Marijuana Should Be Legalized: An Expert's Perspective," YouTube, Dec 15, 2006, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KLy150NR_U
4
Source: Arthur Benjamin, "Formula for Changing Math Education," TED.com, Jun 2009, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_changing_math_education.html
The presenter opens with an issue that will interest some people—namely, "investing in medical breakthroughs"—but will bore others. So, he does a decent job of following Rule 40, but he could do better. Likewise, he does a decent job of "being fully present" (Rule 41). While he does speak directly to the camera and is engaged in what he's saying, but it would be even better if he were a little more enthusiastic and energetic. Although the argument is too short to need a lot of signposting (Rule 41), he does a good job in the time that he has, using signposts like "For example" and "And so" to introduce his key example and his main conclusion. The presenter could easily do better with Rule 43. He's framed his argument as a criticism of the idea that we can achieve medical breakthroughs by funding only medical researchers; he could just as easily have said that we could be achieving even more (and faster) medical breakthroughs by funding a wide range of basic research. That would be a more positive spin on the same idea. He doesn't use any visual aids, which seems like the right choice for this argument, since nothing he's saying needs to be represented graphically (Rule 44). And other than being low-energy right up to the end of his argument, he does end with a dramatic idea—namely, that we might think we're "right on top of a solution when in fact [we're] not." So, he does a fairly good job with Rule 45.
This response addresses each rule from Chapter IX in turn. In many cases, the response offers a nuanced evaluation of how well the presenter's follows each rule, noting both the ways in which he follows it well and the ways in which he could better.
Model Response to Exercise 3
The presenter begins by introducing himself and his work in a rather boring way, rather than reaching out to his audience with a more interesting opening (Rule 40). He maintains good "eye contact" with the camera and uses a conversational tone, rather than reading from notes or droning on in a monotone, so he does a good job with Rule 41. Overall, the presenter does not do a good job with signposting (Rule 42). For most of the presentation, it's not clear whether the main point is that marijuana is safe or that it should be legalized. He does offer a few good "signposts," though, such as when he says that if he found out marijuana were dangerous, then he "would say two things," after which he tells us what those two things are. He offers something positive (Rule 43) by offering a positive policy proposal—namely, that marijuana should be legalized—instead of just criticizing other proposals. He does not use any visual aids (Rule 44), and it doesn't seem like his presentation would be better if he did. He ended in style (Rule 45) with the catchy slogan, "I don't want to legalize marijuana because it's safe. I want to legalize it because it's dangerous."
In addition to approaching the rules in a systematic way, this response offers a nuanced discussion of Rule 42. The response distinguishes between problems with the signposting of the presentation as a whole and the presenter's successful signposting of certain parts of the presentation. It also gives specific details from the presentation to support its evaluation.
Model Response to Exercise 5
The presenter does a good job reaching out to his audience (Rule 40) by telling an interesting story that introduces his main idea. He also does a good job with Rule 41, speaking in an easy-going way and moving out from behind the podium as appropriate. He could do a better job with signposting (Rule 42), although the fact that he weaves his argument into a story makes it easier to follow, even without signposts. He does a surprisingly good job with Rule 43. It would have been easy to approach his topic by criticizing Georgia for its handling of the topic of evolution; instead, he focuses on what Georgia got right in saying that evolution needs to considered critically. He uses visual aids sparingly and well (Rule 44), although it's hard to tell since the camera doesn't show his slides most of time. It is useful to have the exact text of the "warning label" in front of you, so it's worthwhile to show that. Because the video is an excerpt that ends before he finishes his speech, it's hard to evaluate the argument with respect to Rule 45, but he does end that portion of the argument in style by telling us how the story ended.
This response applies the rules from Chapter IX thoughtfully, rather than mechanically and unthinkingly. For instance, instead of just saying that he doesn't use much signposting, the response notes that he still accomplishes the purpose of signposting by weaving his argument into a story. (People usually have an easier time following and remembering stories as opposed to arguments or lists of facts, so weaving your ideas into a story is a helpful way to communicate something orally.)
The argument in the presentation highlights two important features of scientific reasoning. One is that scientific "theories" are not the opposite of "scientific facts" or "scientific laws." They are two different kinds of things. So, to call something a "theory" is not to cast doubt on it or say that we don't know whether it's true. Secondly, science requires critical thinking. Scientific reasoning is, in many ways, continuous with critical thinking, as we've suggested throughout this book.
Model Response to Exercise 7
The presenter does a great job with Rule 40. Not only does he open with the intriguing question, "What's in the box?" but he continues with a well-delivered joke that relates directly to the main theme of his talk (and to which most of the audience, apparently, can relate). He also does a great job with Rule 41, speaking directly to the audience in a friendly way. He does a reasonable job of signposting (Rule 42). For instance, he says "I'm here to tell you" and "I'm going to suggest" to state (and restate) his main idea. He uses phrases like "First up" to introduce his first example and phrases like "Three main ways" to introduce the three key principles that he wants to teach people. He does an excellent job offering something positive (Rule 43), since his entire talk is about how we can solve the problem of having too much stuff—and do it in a way that actually makes us happier. At least later in the presentation, he does a great job with Rule 44, too. The slides in which he shows different kinds of multifunctional, space-saving furniture, etc. really helps the audience understand what he's talking about and to prove his point; some of the slides earlier on are not very informative and could probably have been skipped. He tries to follow Rule 45 by his ending falls a little bit flat, perhaps because he includes three different stylish endings: asking the audience members what's in their box, restating the main point that less is more, and saying "Let's make room for the good stuff."
This response uses specific details of the presentation to support nuanced evaluations of each rule from Chapter IX, citing both the good and bad aspects of the presentation and explaining how those aspects contribute to or detract from the quality of the presentation.
Model Response to Exercise 9
The presenter is apparently so bored with his presentation that he yawns during his own opening sentence, and he finishes the sentence with an uninspiring "Blah blah blah blah...." It is a very weak opening, both in terms of style and content (Rule 40). The presenter maintains a conversational tone during the argument, but he keeps looking off-camera, breaking eye contact with his audience. So, he has only mixed success with Rule 41. He also does a poor job with signposting (Rule 42). In particular, he goes off on a tangent about Christianity in the middle of the presentation, and he doesn't explain until the end of the tangent how that fits into the discussion—and even then, his discussion is mostly just telling people to watch his other videos. He focuses mainly on criticizing the claim that aliens don't exist, but has some positive claim (Rule 43) to make in saying that we ought to treat the existence of aliens as a real possibility. He has no visual aids, but there's no need for visual aids in this argument (Rule 44), so that's fine. His ending is rather abrupt (Rule 45), but at least he makes it clear that his presentation is over.
This response criticizes the presentation with respect to most of the rules in Chapter IX. In discussing each rule, however, the response does note the ways in which the presentation partly follows each rule. Remember to focus on the strong aspects of a presentation, not just the weak ones, since you can learn from both.
This response walks through the rules from this chapter systematically. It cites specific details about the presentation in explaining how the argument follows or violates each rule. With respect to the only rule that the presenter clearly violates, the response indicates how much of a problem this is. With respect to a rule on which the presenter could have done a better job—namely, Rule 44 on visual aids—the response offers a specific suggestion for how to improve the presentation.
Notice that the response does not attempt to evaluate the presenter's argument itself using, e.g., the rules from Chapter I. The response focuses only on how well the speaker does in presenting that argument orally.