Nicholas Cozzarelli

Professor Revulagadda
Foundations in Oral Rhetoric
9 May 2016
Final Speech Reflection
Nicks argument was consistent and thorough throughout his presentation. He laid down
a good foundation of organization by grabbing the attention of the audience, clearly stating his
view that afterlife is real and provable by science. Following his thesis, he stated why he
believed in his thesis by previewing his main arguments. Afterwards, he stated the relevance to
the world, particularly America, and also especially to the class. He established his ethos by
telling the class he has done a lot of research on the topic before this assignment, he has read
books, and also he was inspired to look deeper into this question because his Aunt Maria suffered
a near death experience. By sharing the story about his aunt, he really built strong pathos
because when he went into detail about how severe her condition was at the time, which was
really moving. He provided the use of logos with the help of graphs and facts from research, but
they could have been explained better.
Although his presentation was overall good, he still had some objections. The first
objection he had was that he suppressed evidence by not really going into detail about all the
research and not giving plenty of statistics, but instead more just the simple facts he needed.
This objection was most likely because of time, regardless it is still an objection. Furthermore,
another objection he had was that he had irrelevant information. He was talking about people
and their near death experiences, and his main points were about their cognitive abilities and the
weight of the soul, but his example of Mellen-Thomas Benedict was slightly different from these

main points. This man did have a near death his experience, but in his case he obtained scientific
knowledge, but that doesnt mean he had cognitive abilities of what was going on in the hospital.
Lastly, the last objection is an unreliable source because the study performed by Dr. Duncan
MacDougall was completed in 1907, which scientifically is a long time because there has been
so many advances in the field since then that it is hard to trust that research. Additionally,
although he did preview his points in the beginning, he maybe could have done a better job at
doing that throughout the argument instead of just saying one simple transition word like
continuing or furthermore.
Ultimately, the overall approach of Nicks presentation was great. He was well organized
because he followed the Toulmin model well and he ended with a very interesting quotation that
helped his argument. Although he had some minor objections, the positives of the presentation
were a lot heavier than the negatives. Lastly and most importantly, his delivery and clarity was
spot on to provide an engaging argument. He showed eye contact and used hand motions to
engage the audience throughout the argument, which helped to really connect. His passion and
interest for the subject was clearly heard in the tone of his voice and the knowledge he
demonstrated. Nick has really positively progressed from the first speech to the debate and now
finally to the last speech because he makes use of the lessons learned in class and you can tell
that he practices his delivery.