Joe gave a very informative and interesting speech about the process of brewing beer. This was a unique topic, and something most people- even non-avid drinkers such as myself, were intrigued by. Through out the speech, Joe presented an average level of ethos. Joe only seemed to mention one credible source, a book by the name of: How to Brew: Everything You Need To Know To Brew Beer Right The First Time by John Palmer. He mentioned this same source in the body of all three of his points; however, this was not much of a surprise to me because right in the beginning he clearly stated that this book was interpreted as the “brew bible” to him, therefore, maybe he felt as if he needed no other sources. Also, although Joe gave very distinct directions …show more content…
There was a clear cut attention getter, which lead into his thesis, preview, and so on. His three points were presented in a sequential order: the mashing, the boiling, and lastly the fermentation. This is something I am sure the audience appreciated as sometimes it is harder to inform others on a recipe or process out of the specific order it happens in. The sequential order provides not only for better structure and comprehension of what the speaker is talking about, but also it is proven to show higher retention in the audience after the speaker has finished talking; this I would know as I too, had my informative speech on a recipe in a sequential order. Again, Joe did a clear cut job of explaining the distinct directions in the process and also avoided any unneeded jargon in his speech. Overall, I feel like Joe’s informative speech was good, it just needed work on the specifics I mentioned in the former and most particularly the ethos portion of the speech. I hope Joe reads this critique essay and truly sees why I mentioned the things I did which I believe need improvement, and also understands that this is just how I, an audience member, perceived the speech to be. I look forward to hearing the rest of Joe’s speeches in future