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.
The 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