(240)-343-2585

Speech 3 Tips and Example:

Please review the syllabus and speech three assignment for specific description of the problem-
solution set-up and overall requirements. This speech should build on previous lessons from
speeches one and two, including: organization, audience adaptation, counter-arguments and then
add ethos, logos, and pathos as well as style.

Speech 3 requires problem-solution organization, and that the solution is do-able (or actionable)
for your rhetorical audience. In many ways, it’s easy to find a problem, but the solution part is
more difficult. To see if you are on the right track, ask yourself:

1. How many people care about the problem? The problem needs to be significant and wide
in scope. If only a handful of people care about x problem, then it is not appropriate.

2. What is the solution that you are going to propose for the audience? Does the solution
address the problem(s) defined in the speech?

3. What action can the audience take? The solution needs to be relevant to the audience.
4. Would anyone reasonably object to the solution? Counter-arguments can apply to both

the problem and solution part of your speech, so you would need to address possible
deficits to your solution.

For example, take the topic of overseas sweatshops.

Problem: Sweatshops don’t pay workers very well; they have horrible conditions with little to no
pay. As citizens of the world, we should care about what happens to others, especially when the
clothes on our back could be from someone slaving hours on end without breaks to make our
shirt and pants.

Solution: Buy sweatshop free products available 1) online or 2) in American Apparel stores.
One such store is located by Kenilworth, right on Prospect Ave. Some might think that these
clothes cost more; however, comparatively the cost is about the same and sweatshop clothes
include the hidden cost of human suffering sewn into them. Instead, we can wear clothes to
make a difference. Thus, as world citizens who care about others, we can ensure that the clothes
on our backs don’t break the backs of others.

In my example, the problem is significant (it affects any potential consumer and the
solution is feasible and actionable: a sweatshop free store is close to campus. My rhetorical
audience includes citizens of the world who care about others, and relates that idea to both the
problem and solution parts of the speech. I address the counterargument concerning cost of my
solution by arguing that the cost is about the same or even if the cost may be slightly higher for
consumers here in the U.S., that the social and human rights benefits outweigh the financial
costs. Currently in the status quo, the human costs are hidden by the cheap prices of clothes.

Additionally, I could add to my ethos by using my realization that after looking through
my own clothes and seeing how many are made in China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Indonesia,
the clothes I wear likely come from sweatshops. Logos would develop from my arguments and
using reputable sources such as international labor unions. Pathos and style can go together by
drawing on the idea that the clothes on our back may break the backs of others (as a contrasting
phrase) and using stories of people impacted by sweatshops to build appropriate emotion in the
audience.

Speech 3 Tips and Example:

Please review the syllabus and speech three assignment for specific description of the problem-
solution set-up and overall requirements. This speech should build on previous lessons from
speeches one and two, including: organization, audience adaptation, counter-arguments and then
add ethos, logos, and pathos as well as style.

Speech 3 requires problem-solution organization, and that the solution is do-able (or actionable)
for your rhetorical audience. In many ways, it’s easy to find a problem, but the solution part is
more difficult. To see if you are on the right track, ask yourself:

1. How many people care about the problem? The problem needs to be significant and wide
in scope. If only a handful of people care about x problem, then it is not appropriate.

2. What is the solution that you are going to propose for the audience? Does the solution
address the problem(s) defined in the speech?

3. What action can the audience take? The solution needs to be relevant to the audience.
4. Would anyone reasonably object to the solution? Counter-arguments can apply to both

the problem and solution part of your speech, so you would need to address possible
deficits to your solution.

For example, take the topic of overseas sweatshops.

Problem: Sweatshops don’t pay workers very well; they have horrible conditions with little to no
pay. As citizens of the world, we should care about what happens to others, especially when the
clothes on our back could be from someone slaving hours on end without breaks to make our
shirt and pants.

Solution: Buy sweatshop free products available 1) online or 2) in American Apparel stores.
One such store is located by Kenilworth, right on Prospect Ave. Some might think that these
clothes cost more; however, comparatively the cost is about the same and sweatshop clothes
include the hidden cost of human suffering sewn into them. Instead, we can wear clothes to
make a difference. Thus, as world citizens who care about others, we can ensure that the clothes
on our backs don’t break the backs of others.

In my example, the problem is significant (it affects any potential consumer and the
solution is feasible and actionable: a sweatshop free store is close to campus. My rhetorical
audience includes citizens of the world who care about others, and relates that idea to both the
problem and solution parts of the speech. I address the counterargument concerning cost of my
solution by arguing that the cost is about the same or even if the cost may be slightly higher for
consumers here in the U.S., that the social and human rights benefits outweigh the financial
costs. Currently in the status quo, the human costs are hidden by the cheap prices of clothes.

Additionally, I could add to my ethos by using my realization that after looking through
my own clothes and seeing how many are made in China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Indonesia,
the clothes I wear likely come from sweatshops. Logos would develop from my arguments and
using reputable sources such as international labor unions. Pathos and style can go together by
drawing on the idea that the clothes on our back may break the backs of others (as a contrasting
phrase) and using stories of people impacted by sweatshops to build appropriate emotion in the
audience.