Persuasive Speech Evaluation Form

Invention
5: Excellent
4: Good
3: Adequate
2: Below adequate 1: significantly flawed
0: absent
The speaker:
discussed the ill (and blame and consequences, if applicable) effectively and appropriately.
discussed the cure effectively and appropriately.
discussed realistic calls to action effectively and appropriately.
had congruent argumentative elements.
used evidence effectively and appropriately.
Arrangement
5: Excellent
4: Good
3: Adequate
2: Below adequate 1: significantly flawed
The speaker:
oriented the audience to the topic in the introduction appropriately and effectively.
arranged the speech in a clear and compelling manner.
concluded the speech appropriately and effectively.

0: absent

Style
5: Excellent
4: Good
3: Adequate
2: Below adequate 1: significantly flawed
The speaker:
used stylistic and strategic language appropriately and effectively.
demonstrated a persuasive ethos.
Delivery: Advanced
5: Excellent
4: Good
3: Adequate
2: Below adequate 1: significantly flawed
The speakers delivery:
captured the rhythm of the stylistic devices used.
included a variety of effective and appropriate levels and tones.
helped to distinguish between key ideas and elaborating detail.

0: absent

0: absent

Delivery: Basics
5: Excellent
4: Good
3: Adequate
2: Below adequate
The speaker used:
projection appropriately and effectively.
notes appropriately and effectively.
vocal variety appropriately and effectively.
movement and gestures appropriately and effectively.
Speech length
The speaker delivered a speech that was:
2: An appropriate length (~5-10
1: Too short (3-4:30 minutes) or
minutes)
too long (10-12 minutes)

1: significantly flawed

0: absent

0: Significantly too short (under

3:30) or too long (over 12:30)

Additional Comments:
Invention: I liked how you named the topic quickly and provide a definition. I do think you
could provide some more context as to what you mean by fair trade. That is you give us a

definition and provide some specific examples, but Im not entirely sure whats inside/outside
that definition. You end up talking largely about food (especially since you go after the Farm
Bill), but you seem to be implying much more varied trade.
You have some good evidence in this, but I think you might want to cite some of your sources.
So, for an audience member unfamiliar with the topic, they might blanche at the forced labor
aspect of cocoa production. You might provide some testimony or citation that indicates that this
is documented.
Arrangement: My sense for the speech is that you move through the stock issues:
Ill: lack of enough support for Fair Trade
Blame: US Farm Bill and US consumer attitudes
Cure: End the farm bill and support fair trade
Call to action: push for the end to the farm Bill and but fair Trade.
This is pretty straightforward arrangement; the pieces are congruent with one another. I do have
an invention/arrangement question, why focus on the U.S. Farm Bill as the institutional
inherency? You certainly need to discuss this blame in greater depth. Eliminating the Farm Bill
(given its size and scope) seems to do way more than your argument needs. You state that you
just want to remove an institutional barrier to increasing Fair Trade products. Is there a more
specific institutional barrier that you might discus instead?
Style: You have some good lines in here, but I do think that you can loop in more stylistic
devices. Fair labor practices seems to be a rich area for style.
Delivery: Overall good. I would like to see/hear some emotional variation between the ill and
the calls to action. That said, this sounds quite engaging and professional. In watching this, you
might think a bit more about controlling the hand gestures. I dont think they are a problem, but
some audience members might notice the gestures more than they notice some elements of the
argument.