- HELLO. WELCOME TO "INFORMATIVE SPEAKING."
THIS SHOULD GIVE YOU ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED
IN ORDER TO BEGIN WORKING ON THOSE INFORMATIVE SPEECHES
THAT YOU ALL ARE WORKING ON.
FIRST WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION
OF THE SPEECH, AND PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE DONE ONE OF THESE RECORDINGS,
YOU GUYS, SO I HOPE YOU GIVE ME YOUR HONEST FEEDBACK.
REMEMBER, I DON'T HAVE ANY HURT FEELINGS ABOUT TELLING ME
HOW I CAN DO ANY OF THIS BETTER.
SO, ANYWAYS, BACK TO THE TOPIC, WORKING
ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SPEECH.
YOU ARE GOING TO REFLECT BACK ON THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE
USED FOR THE CULTURAL ARTIFACTS SPEECHES.
YOU GUYS PROBABLY CAN REMEMBER THOSE 3 BASIC ORGANIZATIONS.
WE HAVE CHRONOLOGICAL, WHERE YOU REVIEW
A POINT IN TIME, A PIECE OF HISTORY.
THIS WORKS SOMETIMES WELL WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LIFE
OF SOMEBODY OR EVEN SOMETIMES EVENTS, DATES
SURROUNDING EVENTS.
LIKE THE HISTORY OF CLONING, YOU MIGHT TALK
ABOUT THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION FROM
BEGINNING TO END.
BUT THAT'S WHAT WE MEAN BY CHRONOLOGICAL.
THEN THERE'S SPATIAL.
THIS IS WHERE YOU TALK ABOUT WHERE THINGS ACTUALLY ARE.
IF YOU WERE, SAY, TALKING ABOUT MAYBE A BASEBALL DIAMOND
OR THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU MIGHT LOOK
AT A MAP AND KIND OF ORGANIZE THINGS SPATIALLY.
AND THEN FINALLY IS TOPICAL.
THIS IS WHERE YOU ORGANIZE YOUR SPEECH INTO MAIN IDEAS,
VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT PROBABLY I THINK ALMOST ALL OF YOU DID
FOR YOUR FIRST SPEECHES, FOR YOUR CULTURAL
ARTIFACTS SPEECHES.
SO YOU PICK, SAY, 3 MAIN TOPICS AND COVER EACH OF THOSE.
SO THOSE ARE THE ORGANIZATIONS.
YOU SELECT WHICH ONE YOU WANT TO USE FOR THE SPEECH.
AS FAR AS LAYOUT GOES FOR THIS SPEECH, IT'S IDENTICAL TO THE
CULTURAL ARTIFACTS SPEECH.
YOU WILL USE THE SAME SPEECH WORKSHEET THAT YOU USED
FOR THE CULTURAL ARTIFACT.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE FOR THIS SPEECH IS THAT YOU ARE GOING
TO BE INCLUDING RESEARCH IN THE BODY OF THE SPEECH.
WHEN YOU'RE DOING INFORMATIVE SPEAKING, YOU WANT TO THINK
ABOUT THE GOAL OF PUTTING TOGETHER ONE OF THESE
SPEECHES, AND I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER THAT YOUR GOALS
SHOULD CLARIFY AND SIMPLIFY MESSAGES FOR THE AUDIENCE.
THE TECHNIQUES FOR THIS: YOU MOVE FROM GENERAL TO NARROW
AND REFINED.
SO LET'S SAY I'M DOING A SPEECH ON...PHOTOSYNTHESIS.
I MIGHT WANT TO EXPLAIN IN GENERAL FIRST WHAT
PHOTOSYNTHESIS IS--THIS HAS TO DO WITH PLANTS AND THE SUN,
ET CETERA, ET CETERA--AND GIVE THE AUDIENCE THINGS THEY CAN
MAYBE RELATE TO SO THEY HAVE A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING
OF MY TOPIC.
AND THEN I CAN MOVE INTO THE MORE SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC
INFORMATION ABOUT PHOTOSYNTHESIS.
IT KIND OF WOULD BE LIKE WALKING INTO A MATH CLASS
AND HAVING THE INSTRUCTOR BEGIN WITH EQUATIONS
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE YOU'VE GOTTEN YOUR NOTES OUT
OF YOUR BACKPACK.
YOU NEED A MINUTE OR SO TO KIND OF ADJUST TO THE GENERAL
IDEA, AND THEN YOU'RE READY TO ADAPT TO THAT MORE
SPECIFIC INFORMATION.
THE NEXT TECHNIQUE: TO REDUCE THE QUANTITY OF INFORMATION
FOR THE AUDIENCE.
YOU'RE BECOMING THE EXPERT IN THIS TOPIC, AND YOU'RE GOING
TO BE GATHERING TONS AND TONS OF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION
ABOUT YOUR TOPIC, AND IT'S YOUR JOB TO FILTER THROUGH
THAT AND PICK THE MOST IMPORTANT
AND RELEVANT INFORMATION.
MAKE COMPLEX INFORMATION MORE FAMILIAR.
SO WE'RE TAKING OUR PHOTOSYNTHESIS TOPIC,
FOR EXAMPLE.
YOU WOULD WANT TO MAYBE RELATE PHOTOSYNTHESIS TO SOMETHING
THAT WE UNDERSTAND USING AN ANALOGY, USING A COMPARISON.
SO YOU TAKE SOMETHING WE DON'T UNDERSTAND AND RELATE IT TO
THINGS WE DO UNDERSTAND.
FINALLY, IT SHOULD BE AUDIENCE-CENTERED AND USE
TECHNIQUES THAT INCREASE THE AUDIENCE RETENTION
OF THE MESSAGE.
THE BEST WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS IS IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU,
IT'S ABOUT DELIVERING A MESSAGE TO YOUR AUDIENCE.
NOW, WHEN I THINK ABOUT ALL OF THESE THINGS TOGETHER, WHAT I
SUGGEST YOU DO WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY DRAFTING OUT YOUR
SPEECH AND OUTLINING IS ACTUALLY THINK IN TERMS OF IF
YOUR AUDIENCE WENT TO A DINNER PARTY THE FRIDAY NIGHT AFTER
YOU DELIVERED YOUR SPEECH AND YOUR TOPIC CAME UP AS A DINNER
CONVERSATION, COULD THEY HAVE AN INTELLIGENT
CONVERSATION ABOUT IT?
COULD THEY SHARE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SHOW LIKE THEY
KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
IF YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY COULD, THEN YOU'RE PROBABLY
NOT DOING YOUR JOB OF WHAT YOU NEED TO DO
IN AN INFORMATIVE SPEECH.
NOT SUCH DETAILED INFORMATION THAT WE COULDN'T TALK ABOUT IT
AND NOT SO MINIMAL THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY GETTING ANYTHING
OUT OF IT, EITHER.
AS I SAID, THE KEY COMPONENT OF THIS SPEECH THAT VARIES
FROM THE FIRST SPEECH IS THE USE OF RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE.
RESEARCH IS THE INVESTIGATION OF WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID OR
WRITTEN ABOUT YOUR TOPIC.
THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS TO THAT RESEARCH.
THE SOURCE--THAT'S THE PEOPLE OR PUBLICATION FROM WHICH YOU
GET YOUR INFORMATION.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE "FRESNO BEE," "TIME" MAGAZINE,
"NEWSWEEK" WOULD ALL BE EXAMPLES OF SOURCES.
EVIDENCE IS THE INFORMATION YOU USE IN YOUR SPEECH TO
SUPPORT YOUR IDEAS.
SO IT'S THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE YOU'RE PULLING OUT
OF THE "TIME" MAGAZINE ARTICLE AND INCLUDING IN YOUR SPEECH.
IMPORTANT: IT'S NOT A FACT UNTIL YOU PROVE IT.
SUPPOSE I'M DOING A SPEECH ON THE VALUE OF PUBLIC SPEAKING.
I COULD TALK ABOUT THAT FOR DAYS.
THIS IS MY FIELD.
THIS IS WHAT I LOVE TO DO.
SO I COULD DO THIS WITHOUT ANY RESEARCH.
I HAVE A LOT OF RESEARCH FLOATING AROUND IN MY MIND
BUT PROBABLY COULDN'T CITE IT EXACTLY.
SO I CAN'T COME INTO THIS CLASS AND GIVE A SPEECH
ON PUBLIC SPEAKING WITHOUT INCLUDING ACTUAL CITED SOURCES
AND EVIDENCE.
YES, I HAVE CREDIBILITY BECAUSE I'M A SPEECH TEACHER,
BUT IT'S NOT A FACT UNTIL I PROVE IT.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVIDENCE.
THERE ARE EXAMPLES.
THESE ARE SAMPLES OR INSTANCES THAT YOU USE TO SUPPORT
A GENERAL CLAIM.
SO SUPPOSE I AM DOING MY SPEECH ON THE VALUE
OF PUBLIC SPEAKING.
I MIGHT GIVE ONE OR TWO EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT
THEY SHOULDN'T TAKE A PUBLIC SPEAKING CLASS AND THEN WHO
HAVE ENDED UP GIVING AT LEAST ONE SPEECH A MONTH IN THEIR
CHOSEN PROFESSION.
THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF USING EXAMPLES.
TESTIMONY--STATES OR CLAIMS MADE BY OTHERS TO SUPPORT
YOUR CLAIMS.
SO THESE ARE QUOTES, EXPERT OPINION, ALL THAT KIND
OF GOOD STUFF.
YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE SURGEON GENERAL, YOU SHOULD
EAT A BALANCED DIET CONSISTING OF THESE THINGS.
NARRATIVE--A STORY THAT SUPPORTS A POINT
IN YOUR SPEECH.
SOMETIMES THESE MAKE GOOD ATTENTION GETTERS.
YOU CAN OPEN UP WITH A STORY THAT GETS US FEELING
THE EMOTION OF YOUR SPEECH.
FACTS--THESE ARE NOT CONTROVERSIAL--GENERALLY
ACCEPTED, OR EASILY PROVEN TO A REASONABLE PERSON.
SO IF I'M DOING MY SPEECH ON THE HISTORY OF McDONALD'S
AND I SAY THE FIRST McDONALD'S OPENED IN 1930-SOMETHING,
THAT'S A FACT.
NOBODY'S GONNA ARGUE IT.
THE AUDIENCE ISN'T GONNA GET ALL UPSET SAYING, "OH,
I THOUGHT IT WAS 1925," OR, "I THOUGHT IT WAS 1942."
A FACT IS JUST A GENERALLY ACCEPTED IDEA.
AND STATISTICS--INFORMATION PRESENTED IN NUMERICAL FORM.
FOR EXAMPLE, 43% OF THE POPULATION DOES NOT RECYCLE
CATALOGS THAT THEY GET IN THE MAIL, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
SOME SORT OF STATISTIC.
SO I MIGHT ASK YOU GUYS, IF WE WERE IN CLASS TOGETHER,
I'D SAY, "WHICH OF THESE DO YOU GUYS THINK IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT OR THE MOST EFFECTIVE IN YOUR SPEECH?"
AND EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION.
SOME PEOPLE REALLY LIKE STATISTICS BECAUSE THEY WANT
THE NUMBERS.
"SHOW ME THE NUMBERS."
SOME PEOPLE LIKE NARRATIVES.
THEY LIKE TO HEAR A STORY TO REALLY UNDERSTAND TOPICS.
SOME PEOPLE LIKE TESTIMONY BECAUSE THEY THINK IF
AN EXPERT SAYS IT, THEN IT'S REAL.
SOME PEOPLE LIKE EXAMPLES.
SO YOU PROBABLY EACH HAVE YOUR OPINION OF WHAT YOU LIKE
AND WHAT YOU DISLIKE, AND THAT'S FINE, BUT WHAT YOU
WANT TO DO AS A SPEAKER IS USE A VARIETY OF TECHNIQUES TO
SUPPORT YOUR SPEECH BECAUSE IF A SPEECH JUST HAS--YOU USE
YOUR WHOLE 5 MINUTES TO PRESENT 4 EXAMPLES,
THE STATISTICS PERSON WILL SAY, "WELL, JEEZ, THAT WAS
"ONLY 4 EXAMPLES.
"I WANT TO KNOW, DOES THIS IMPACT A LARGER NUMBER
OF PEOPLE?"
OR IF YOU USED ALL STATISTICS TO SUPPORT YOUR SPEECH,
YEAH, IT WOULD BE A LOT OF VALUABLE INFORMATION, BUT YOUR
LISTENERS ARE ONLY GOING TO REALLY BE ABLE TO DIGEST
A LITTLE BIT OF THAT INFORMATION.
JUST HEARING NUMBERS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO REMEMBER IT,
AND WE'RE GONNA GET KIND OF BORED.
SO TOO MUCH OF ONE THING IS NOT GOOD.
I WANT YOU TO USE A NICE, MODERATE AMOUNT OF EACH.
EVALUATION OF YOUR EVIDENCE-- WHEN YOU LOOK AT YOUR
EVIDENCE, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE IT'S CREDIBLE.
YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT FOR CREDIBILITY.
EXPERTISE--DOES THE PERSON HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE?
NOW, IF YOU'RE DOING A SPEECH ON PUBLIC SPEAKING, YEAH,
YOU COULD QUOTE ME, BECAUSE I HAVE SOME EXPERTISE ON IT.
IF YOU'RE DOING A SPEECH ON MATH, NOT SO MUCH.
OBJECTIVITY--DOES THE PERSON HAVE A BIAS?
WHEN HILLARY CLINTON WAS STILL IN THE RACE, WOULD WE LOOK TO
BILL CLINTON AS REALLY AN OBJECTIVE SOURCE
ABOUT HER CANDIDACY?
NO, WE WOULDN'T.
AND RELUCTANT TESTIMONY
EVIDENCE STATING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WOULD BE EXPECTED.
LIKE IF WE HAVE PHILIP MORRIS COMPANY SAYING, "YEAH, REALLY
NOBODY SHOULD SMOKE, BECAUSE IT'S SO BAD FOR YOU," THAT
WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF RELUCTANT TESTIMONY.
AND YOU WANT TO EVALUATE FOR RECENCY, THE AGE OR TIMELINESS
OF THE EVIDENCE.
NOW, THIS IS ALL RELATIVE TO THE TYPE OF TOPIC YOU HAVE.
IF YOU'RE DOING THE HISTORY OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.,
LOOKING AT HIS LIFE, THE AGE ISN'T SO MUCH IMPORTANT,
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A POINT IN OUR HISTORY WHERE
BOOKS AND OLDER PIECES OF EVIDENCE WOULD PROBABLY COVER
THE TOPIC THE BEST.
BUT IF YOU WERE DOING, SAY, A SPEECH ON CLONING, YOU'D
PROBABLY WANT TO LOOK AT MORE RECENT EVIDENCE,
AT PERIODICALS, BECAUSE IT'S A SCIENCE THAT IS CHANGING
DRASTICALLY, ESPECIALLY WITH THE USE OF STEM CELL RESEARCH.
SO YOU'D WANT TO LOOK FOR SOME MORE TIMELY TYPES
OF INFORMATION.
IF YOU WERE DOING A SPEECH ON THE WAR IN IRAQ, YOUR EVIDENCE
WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO BE AS NEW AS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO
BECAUSE THAT SITUATION IS CHANGING DAILY.
SO RECENCY DEPENDS ON THE TOPIC.
I JUST EXPECT THAT YOU GUYS WOULD USE YOUR JUDGMENT
AND FIGURE OUT HOW RECENT YOUR EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVIDENCE.
THERE ARE BOOKS; PERIODICALS; THE INTERNET, OF COURSE;
INTERVIEWS; AND NEWSPAPERS.
SPEAKING ON EACH OF THESE-- BOOKS ARE REALLY GOOD
FOR HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES.
DOWNSIDE OF A BOOK: IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO GET A BOOK
PUBLISHED AND EDITED AND ON OUR SHELVES, SO THEY'RE GENERALLY
NOT THE MOST RECENT INFORMATION.
IF I WAS DOING A SPEECH ON NUTRITION, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T
LOOK TO A BOOK, BECAUSE THE SCIENCE OF NUTRITION HAS
CHANGED DRAMATICALLY.
NOW, IF I WENT TO THE BOOKSTORE AND BOUGHT A NEW
BOOK, THEN POSSIBLY, BUT FROM OUR LIBRARY, MAYBE NOT.
PERIODICALS--THESE WOULD BE MAGAZINES, JOURNALS, ALL THAT
KIND OF GOOD STUFF.
THESE ARE EXCELLENT SOURCES.
THESE ARE PROBABLY WHERE YOU'RE GONNA FIND THE MOST
TYPES OF INFORMATION YOU NEED.
CREDIBLE TYPES OF PERIODICALS--"TIME,"
"NEWSWEEK," "CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR."
TYPES OF JOURNALS--"THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION."
MOST SCIENCES HAVE SOME SORT OF JOURNAL ASSOCIATED
WITH THEM.
I'M GONNA COME BACK TO THE INTERNET.
SO I'M GONNA SKIP DOWN TO INTERVIEWS.
INTERVIEWS CAN BE REALLY COOL.
THEY SOUND VERY PROFESSIONAL AND THOROUGH.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO INTERVIEW SOMEBODY, REALLY THINK
ABOUT YOUR QUESTIONS AHEAD OF TIME, BECAUSE INTERVIEWING
IS A SKILL.
IT'S NOT EASY TO GET A GOOD INTERVIEW.
AND THEN NEWSPAPERS--VERY TIMELY.
YOU CAN FIND UP-TO-THE-MINUTE TYPES OF INFORMATION.
THE ONLY ISSUE WITH NEWSPAPERS IS THEY CAN BE VERY BIASED.
THEY SWING VERY FAR LEFT OR VERY FAR RIGHT.
YOU CAN USUALLY TELL AS SOON AS YOU PICK UP THE FIRST PAGE
WHAT KIND OF SITUATION YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.
JUMPING BACK UP TO THE INTERNET, THE INTERNET,
OF COURSE, IS HOW WE DO EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW.
IT'S WHERE WE LOOK.
IF WE WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING, WE JUMP ON THE INTERNET.
IF WE SAY, "WHY DO I HAVE A PURPLE SPOT ON MY TOE?"
WE CAN GOOGLE IT AND FIND 101,000 REASONS WHY WE HAVE
PURPLE SPOTS ON OUR TOES.
SO IT IS A VERY VALUABLE SOURCE, OF COURSE.
WHEN YOU ARE USING THE INTERNET, YOU MUST LOOK
AT THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATION OR AUTHOR.
I DO NOT WANT PERSONAL WEBPAGES CITED.
CYNDIE LUNA'S PUBLICSPEAKINGPAGE.COM
IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
IF YOU WENT TO THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS
AND THEY HAD SOMETHING BY CYNDIE LUNA ON THEIR WEBSITE,
THAT WOULD BE FINE, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE A PROFESSIONAL
ORGANIZATION SPONSORING THE WEBSITE.
I DO NOT WANT WIKIPEDIA.
THAT'S NOT CREDIBLE.
ANYBODY CAN POST ANYTHING TO WIKIPEDIA.
I CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW WHILE I'M RECORDING THIS
FOR YOU GUYS.
AND AS FAR AS THE WEB GOES, ON YOUR BIBLIOGRAPHY, YOU HAVE
TO HAVE A BIBLIOGRAPHY IN APA STYLE THAT HAS 5 SOURCES.
ONLY 3 OF THOSE SOURCES CAN COME FROM THE INTERNET.
NOW, IF YOU'RE USING THE INTERNET TO ACCESS PRINT MEDIA
LIKE "TIME" MAGAZINE OR "THE FRESNO BEE," YOU'RE GETTING
AN ARTICLE BUT YOU'RE USING THE INTERNET TO ACCESS THAT
ARTICLE, THAT DOES NOT COUNT AS AN INTERNET SITE.
YOU ARE JUST USING THE INTERNET TO ACCESS PRINT
MATERIALS, AND THAT'S FINE.
CITING EVIDENCE IN YOUR SPEECH-- THERE'S A VERY SPECIFIC
PROCESS THAT YOU GUYS WILL USE TO CITE EVIDENCE
IN YOUR SPEECH.
YOU NEED TO DO THIS 4 TIMES IN THE BODY OF YOUR SPEECH.
SO YOUR BIBLIOGRAPHY HAS 5 SOURCE CITES, AND YOUR SPEECH
SHOULD HAVE 4 SOURCE CITES IN THE BODY OF THE SPEECH,
AND THIS IS THE PROCESS.
YOU BEGIN WITH A CLAIM.
THE CLAIM IS A SUMMARY OF YOUR INFORMATION OR YOUR ARGUMENT.
IT'S KIND OF LIKE A LITTLE TAGLINE, IF YOU WILL.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, UM...LET'S SEE.
MAYBE AMERICANS ARE NOT RECYCLING ENOUGH COULD
BE MY CLAIM.
SOURCE--THIS IS THE PERSON OR PUBLICATION FROM WHICH YOU
RECEIVED YOUR INFORMATION.
GIVE US THE INFORMATION THAT MAKES YOUR SOURCE VALUABLE
OR CREDIBLE.
SO IF YOU'RE CITING A BOOK, YOU TELL US AT LEAST THE TITLE
AND THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK.
FOR PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS, TELL US
THE PUBLICATION AND THE DATE.
DATES ARE VERY IMPORTANT FOR PERIODICALS.
FOR QUOTES, WE WANT TO HEAR THE NAME, THE DATE,
AND THE CREDENTIALS OF THE PERSON.
GIVE US WHATEVER'S GONNA MAKE IT A CREDIBLE SOURCE.
SO, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS,
WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR THE STAFF WRITER'S NAME,
BECAUSE THE STAFF WRITER DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING TO US.
FOR BOOKS, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR THE PUBLISHING
COMPANY AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
SO IT'S LESS INFORMATION THAN YOU WOULD PUT IN AN OFFICIAL
BIBLIOGRAPHY, BUT IT'S ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT WE KNOW YOUR
SOURCE IS CREDIBLE.
SO WE HAD NOT ENOUGH AMERICANS ARE RECYCLING, AND THEN OUR
SOURCE WOULD BE ACCORDING TO "GREEN" MAGAZINE, JUNE 2009.
AND THEN OUR SUPPORT--THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE FROM
THE PERSON OR PUBLICATION THAT SUPPORTS YOUR IDEA.
SO THESE ARE ALL THE IDEAS THAT YOU'VE PULLED OUT OF YOUR
PUBLICATION THAT YOU WOULD USE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.
SO WE HAVE NOT ENOUGH AMERICANS ARE RECYCLING.
ACCORDING TO "GREEN" MAGAZINE, JUNE 2009, ONLY 95%
OF HOUSEHOLDS ARE RECYCLING SOME SORT
OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS.
HOWEVER, MOST PEOPLE ARE ONLY RECYCLING CANS AND BOTTLES.
MOST PEOPLE DON'T THINK TO RECYCLE CEREAL BOXES,
NEWSPAPERS, AND OTHER TYPES OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS, AND THIS
ACCOUNTS FOR FIGURES AS LOW AS ONLY 30% OF PEOPLE ARE
RECYCLING SOMETHING IN THEIR HOME.
SO THAT WAS KIND OF A MUDDY EXAMPLE, BUT IT'S AN EXAMPLE.
HERE'S A BETTER ONE.
THE OLDEST McDONALD'S IS ACTUALLY
IN FRESNO, CALIFORNIA.
ACCORDING TO "THE McDONALD'S EMPIRE" BY STEPHEN MITCHELL,
THE McDONALD'S ON SHIELDS AND BLACKSTONE WAS THE FIRST
FRANCHISE BUILT IN CALIFORNIA.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY OWNED BY RAY KROC AND FRANCHISED
OUT IN 1972.
IN 2001, IT WAS REMODELED TO RESEMBLE
THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.
SO THE CLAIM--IT'S A LITTLE SUMMARY.
THE OLDEST McDONALD'S IS ACTUALLY IN FRESNO.
THE SOURCE IS "THE McDONALD'S EMPIRE" BY STEPHEN MITCHELL.
AND THEN THE SUPPORT IS ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT ACTUALLY
SUPPORTS THAT IDEA OF THE OLDEST McDONALD'S BEING
IN FRESNO.
NOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT SUPPORT IS IN MY OWN WORDS.
IT'S PARAPHRASED.
IF YOU COPY SOMETHING DIRECTLY OUT AND YOUR SPEECH IS NOT
ORIGINAL, THAT'S THE SAME AS PLAGIARIZING IN A PAPER.
YOU WANT IT TO BE IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
SO I WANT YOU GUYS AFTER YOU'RE DONE WITH THIS LECTURE
TO JUST PRACTICE CLAIM, SOURCE, SUPPORT.
THIS McDONALD'S ONE, I MADE UP COMPLETELY.
THERE'S NOT REALLY A BOOK CALLED THAT.
THAT'S NOT ACTUAL DATA.
IT'S JUST STUFF I MADE UP.
SO DO THE SAME THING, AND GET SOME PRACTICE.
SO THAT IS IT FOR...