- 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...