Title: The Subprime Mortgage Crisis Evaluator: Do Hyun Lim Date: October 18th, 2016
• The general purpose of the speech was clear. 1 The general purpose was to inform the audience about the difficult subject of subprime mortgage crisis.
• The speech organization supported the speech's specific purpose. 2 Yes, it started with a general idea then developed into specific and technical details
• The main points and supporting material contributed to the speech's specific purpose. 1 Yes, the data supported his explanations.
• The speaker achieved the specific purpose. 1 Yes, we gained greater knowledge about the crisis.
• The speaker appeared confident and sincere, with minimal nervousness. 2 The speaker’s flow of speech was good without any serious mistakes.
• The speaker did not rely on notes throughout the speech. 2 The speaker made eye-contacts to the audience with just occasional looking at the script.
• What could the speaker have done differently to make the speech more effective? 2 The voice could have been clearer if the mic was a little further away. Also, some vocabulary were a little hard so some explanations would have been helpful.
• What did you like about the presentation? I liked how he could give a general overview of a difficult subject, and ending the speech with a question for us to think about.
Title: The Subprime Mortgage Crisis
ReplyDeleteEvaluator: Do Hyun Lim
Date: October 18th, 2016
• The general purpose of the speech was clear. 1
The general purpose was to inform the audience about the difficult subject of subprime mortgage crisis.
• The speech organization supported the speech's specific purpose. 2
Yes, it started with a general idea then developed into specific and technical details
• The main points and supporting material contributed to the speech's specific purpose. 1
Yes, the data supported his explanations.
• The speaker achieved the specific purpose. 1
Yes, we gained greater knowledge about the crisis.
• The speaker appeared confident and sincere, with minimal nervousness. 2
The speaker’s flow of speech was good without any serious mistakes.
• The speaker did not rely on notes throughout the speech. 2
The speaker made eye-contacts to the audience with just occasional looking at the script.
• What could the speaker have done differently to make the speech more effective? 2
The voice could have been clearer if the mic was a little further away. Also, some vocabulary were a little hard so some explanations would have been helpful.
• What did you like about the presentation?
I liked how he could give a general overview of a difficult subject, and ending the speech with a question for us to think about.