Three-Speech Evaluation Informative Speech on Fast Food The introduction to the speech sought to employ some mystery in describing what eventually turned out to be Ronald MacDonald, and while it succeeded in getting the audience’s attention, the description of a clown is a rather far leap to the topic at hand, which is fast foods, so as a preview it is off-tangent to the central theme. it also draws attention to a single brand when fast food covers a multitude of other brands. The body of the speech is slightly better, with useful information being given about the consumption patterns of the public and adverse effects of fast food on their health, but then again the concentration on MacDonald’s without mention of other brands. The failure to include statistics on other brands gives the impression that the problem may not be endemic after all, because only one chain appears to be responsible for the problem. avoiding that store, you avoid the problem, which I believe is not what the speaker intended. The display of money (a hundred dollars) is a good visual ploy to bring the point home about savings. The speaker also employed sufficient research, although the point about monitoring one’s fast food consumption was not sufficiently made. The closing, I’m going to go grab my Big Mac, was likely an attempt at humor, but it contradicts rather than reinforces the message. All in all, the speaker appears at ease, despite a few nervous pauses to glance at his notes, and in general maintained eye contact with his audience. His face was animated and shows he was connecting with his audience. His tone could have been more lively, but it was not monotonous and is on the whole satisfactory. Overall, the speech was entertaining, slightly humorous, and relatively informative.Informative Speech on Animal ExperimentationThe opening was a first-person narrative of what turned out to be a Labrador pleading for its life, so it was compelling enough to capture audience attention, and the speaker effectively brings the focus squarely to the welfare of the animals. His research on the law and practice concerning animal experimentation is likewise forceful as it is informative, as it emphasized the gruesome aspects of the use of animals in scientific and medical research and personifies their pain in human terms. What it lacks, however, is balance. The speaker asks the audience to suspend their moral judgment, but at the same time presents information that directly appeals to this moral judgment. To be more objective, the speaker should also have presented alternatives to animal testing, as obviously products and medicinal preparations could not be directly tested on humans as this would be clearly more unconscionable. The lack of this information leaves a gaping hole in the logic of the speech. The closing uses shocking imagery to deliver home the message that animal experimentation is inhumane. however, its use of sarcasm in belittling the science that employs this is misplaced, considering that an adequate alternative was not proposed. In short, the speaker loses points on credibility for lack of balance in the research done. As to his demeanor, the speaker sufficiently engaged his audience, as may be seen from the reactions of the listeners immediately in front of him. He maintains eye contact which is broken occasionally by somewhat prolonged referrals to his notes. at one time he breaks this contact by reading rather lengthily from his notes, although this happened only once. His tone was conversational, maybe too much so, as its ordinariness does not maximize the shock factor of his speech content. He could have added more fire and brimstone while relating those truly gruesome descriptions on animal testing. The same could be said for his stance. instead of shifting weight while speaking he could have stood squarely and addressed the audience with more force and deliberation.Informative Speech on Oprah WinfreyThe opening is ingenious, introducing with a few short, needless to say exciting, words (You get a car!) the person whose life the speech is about. Unfortunately, from this auspicious start, the speech quickly goes downhill as it degenerates into a history lecture, rattling off dates and events enumerated with little explanation. The speaker goes on to list Oprah Winfrey’s (the subject’s) likes and friends, and even a description of her home, address, life partner, and pets. Repeated mention is made of the fact that Oprah is the most powerful woman of our time, without explaining why except apparently because of her sizeable net worth. Aside from brief mention of the African academy she has established and that she is a philathropist, the rest of the facts on Oprah had been on the titles and positions she had occupied. Obviously, the speech fails to dig deeper to describe the type of person this remarkable woman is, the travails of her youth and the struggle to reach the status she enjoys today. The speech is shallow, failing to capture the essence of Oprah, and the motives and aspirations that have shaped her character and made her outstanding. Research into the person’s life beyond the showbiz façade, and greater sensitivity in its treatment, are lacking in the speech. The ending is unremarkable in that it merely repeats what the speaker has already repeatedly said, that Oprah is a great woman. As to deportment, the speaker is well prepared and has thoroughly mastered her speech, but her style tends to remind one of the TV infomercials that end with persuading the audience to call a toll-free number and order something. Her volume and tone are loud and forceful, which is good given that she is extolling the merits of the subject of her speech. Her visual aids abound, probably a bit too much, making it appear, as previously mentioned, that she is selling something. Overall, while the speech is full of facts and figures, it lacks in information that would truly move the audience and leave them with a lasting impression of the woman it tries to describe.