At the International Biodiversity Conference held in Japan in October 2010, Professor Chris Lee presented his keynote speech entitled ‘Taking Stock’. Lee’s speech addressed the commitment made by a collective of countries in reducing the rate of biodiversity loss. Through
the use of a cynical tone, Lee questions
not 100% sure so maybe confirm with someone else but I was told not to explain techniques in the intro??? before criticising his audience for the lack of action, thus far, taken by countries. Lee, effectively, contends that each and every individual has a role to play in reducing the biodiversity loss rate, and therefore should make an appropriate contribution.
maybe introduce the two images in the introduction as well (ie accompanying the speech was a powerpoint slide w/ with two images at the beginning and or smth?) perhaps start with a general sentence about the overall technique Chris Lee’s speech commences with an image on the first slide. In this visual, all aspects of biodiversity are clearly depicted and incorporated in the form of the year 2010. This includes a school of fish, a flamingo, a father and his toddler-aged son, and a tree. By showcasing all different forms of life on Earth, the author intends to illustrate the importance of the preservation of biodiversity. It can be inferred that by depicting a father and his young son together, the presenter seeks to demonstrate the value of biodiversity to the future generation and the need to ‘safeguard’ it. The visual directly complements the
opening lines of the speech, which informatively explains the presentation’s purpose: idk seems a bit like you are just telling?? rather than analysing that is, the invitation extended to the world to protect various life forms on earth. Coupled with the visual, the speech’s opening lines calls members of the audience to consider the necessity of biodiversity and its protection; as well as the repercussions associated with its future loss.
The presentation advances with Lee posing several questions to his listeners, querying them on a series of matters. Lee, firstly, takes to explaining the commitment made by several countries in 2002 to ‘achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss’. As a result of the rhetoric question ‘how well have we done?’, listeners of the speech are called to consider and ponder on the action or inaction taken by their respective countries, in achieving the commitment. The speech continues with the professor persistently quizzing his audience, this time asking ‘how far we have come’ in reaching a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss in order to alleviate poverty and ensure preservation of life. In this way, Lee’s audience is led to assess the impact of their very actions in addressing the matter, and may perhaps be instilled with a sense of guilt due to the lack of action they have taken.
both rhetorical questions seem to have similar effect on the audience, perhaps you could condense or connect them? This level of guilt or intrigue afforded by Lee to his audience, is designed to prompt them to consider and determine measures that can be taken to address the issue. At this point in Lee’s speech, listeners are held to a high level of engagement; positioned to assess measures that can effectively address the harmful issue.
The next portion of Lee’s speech is dominated by all forms of statistics, wherein the professor describes how ‘35% of mangroves, 40% of forests, and 50% of wetlands’ have been lost in the past century. This use of statistics aims to highlight the harm and great loss of biodiversity, as opposed to any gains or a reduction in those rates. Further, Lee cites the International Union for Conservation of Nature, explaining that within a certain listing of species assessed, ‘38% are presently threatened’ with ‘804 already extinct’. The use of statistics by Lee, in addition to his role as a professor, does indeed add credence to this point of view. Consequently, readers are inclined to view the presenter as well informed and knowledgeable of the issue, and thus are more likely to accept his stance.
idk if this is accurate but I was told statistics don't just add credibility b/c theyre kinda just numbers?? more so like the qualifiers such as 804 are "already" extinct have an effect on the audience b/c it makes it seem like 804 is a proportionally high number and we cannot afford any more biodiversity loss?? Furthermore, the negativity associated with these figures are likely to instil a sense of urge to act; with readers coming to the understanding that the trends are likely to further increase rather than decrease if inaction is to continue.
Having presented a range of statistics to his listeners, Lee advances his speech by wholly including his audience. The constant use of
inclusive language ‘we’, ‘you’, and ‘our’, is intended to bestow upon his listeners a sense of responsibility; calling them to action. Lee states that ‘our lack of unity and genuine commitment to action’ can be attributed to the current circumstances. The professor additionally mentions the ineffectiveness of ‘glossy brochures’ and ‘inspiring documentaries’ which his audience is likely to have been exposed to. Listeners, are thus, compelled to perceive and comprehend the sheer reality of the situation and how the aforementioned fails to achieve anything of substance. Furthermore, by directly addressing his audience, Lee somewhat holds those listeners accountable and prompts them to assess the impact of their actions – if any – yet again, causing them to feel guilt and thus leading them to a form of action.
seems like similiar argument to your first sentence in this para This is followed by a reinforcement of the primary issue – that is, biodiversity – and its impact on the ‘rural poor’ and poverty as a whole. In referring to his audience as ‘affluent hunters and gatherers’, who must ‘hunt less, gather less, conserve more, and preserve more’, the audience is yet again urged to act against the issue which greatly affects a large part of the world.
how is the audience made to feel this? feels like a bit of stretch to go from affluent hunters and gatherers --> serious global issues?As a result, there is a sense of newfound acceptance and understanding for Lee’s sentiment, with listeners inclined to agree with the points raised regarding minimising the rate of biodiversity loss.
Having engendered support from readers in the matter of biodiversity, its value and the necessity of preservation, the presenter seeks to outline measures that can be taken to address the issue. Lee calls his readers to take ‘serious action’ by redistributing his message to ‘politicians, corporate leaders and even the everyday householder’. The mention of ‘serious action’, in particular, appeals to Lee’s audience as they are informed of their ability to make some sort of impact on the matter. Hence, listeners who have thus far been positioned to agree with Lee’s message will be inclined to reinforce and convey the message—thereby taking ‘serious action’— in the hope of achieving a reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss.
The presentation closes with a visual of the planet Earth held between two hands. The suggestion made from this visual is that the world and thus biodiversity, is in the hands of all residing on the planet and thus the audience of the presentation. In this way, readers are caused to feel directly accountable for an increase or reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss. Coupled with Lee’s prior advice, the audience is positioned to take serious action given their newfound role in protecting biological biodiversity.
Professor Chris Lee presents a coherent and well structured speech,
I was told you should not evaluate the merit of the LA piece (ie if the writer is good or not) rather LA is about analysing the arguments if that makes sense? that is signposted to convey his points. Through the use of a cynical and critical tone, in conjunction with rhetoric devices, statistics, and inclusive language, Lee—also, by way of his position—gains great credibility and is thus able to persuade his audience to take action in reducing the rate of biodiversity loss.
general comments:
-a good piece with some really good analysis
-you seem to have a good understanding of the audience + you picked almost all the techniques
-some things to consider:
*you analysed your LA in chronological order which led to some overlap, maybe consider grouping them by argument/techniques/effect on audience etc.
this is my first time giving feedback + i am currently in yr12 as well so not sure if correct perhaps double check with someone with a bit more experience and I don't feel like I have the knowledge/capability to give it a score but I hope I was somewhat helpful !
Home
Help
Search
Login
