TED Talk General Analysis Questions: Answer the following questions on your own paper for David R. Dow’s “Lessons from Death Row Inmates”. These are due 5/2 Monday for a formative, but you may turn them in early! Remember: we are asking you to analyze this argument, not to agree with it. Please write thorough responses on a separate piece of paper. You may type your response.

Need to watch it twice? Google David R. Dow “Lessons from Death Row Inmates” and you will find it!

  1. What is the primary argument of this TED lecture? What are the “undefined” terms that you must understand to understand the argument? Are there any secondary or unstated premises on which this lecture relies? If so, what are they?
  2. What types of evidence does the speaker use to support his or her argument? Does the speaker use evidence from the realm of personal anecdote? How does this personal anecdote establish the speaker’s credibility? Does the speaker use examples from history? How? Does the speaker use examples from literature, the movies, or other allusions to art? How and why?
  3. How does the speaker use the rhetorical appeals? How does the speaker establish their authority to speak? (Ethos) How does the speaker use logic to persuade? (Logos) How and where does the speaker use emotionally charged language or examples? (Pathos) Does the speaker add any details that are designed to appeal to the shared cultural values, or traditions of the audience? Be on the look- out for pop culture references. (Mythos)
  4. Where and when does the speaker address the counter-arguments to his or her claim? Does this person ever use a concession, or do they acknowledge that there is partial truth in the opposing claim? Is there anything controversial in this argument? Does the speaker attempt to qualify controversial claims with distancing language? (For example does the speaker use phrases such as “in my experience”,“sometimes” , “in some cases”, “it may be that”, “for some cultures”, etc.)
  5. How are visual aids used by the speaker if any are used? Do the aids merely repeat key information or do they add to or modify the speaker’s claims? How is the speaker dressed? How is the selection of attire designed to add to the speaker’s ethos? If you removed the visual aids and listened to this speech with your eyes closed, would it significantly affect the way you receive the argument? How?