1.
In Fried’s TED talk, he discusses the reason people do not get work done at work. All three of the TED talks were relatable but I felt that Fried’s was the most because of the way he explained distractions and the way he compared work to sleep. I think that the talk as a whole is significant for many reasons, I also think that the way Fried presented his argument is important because the way that an argument is presented can have an effect on the response by the audience. He gave example after example and explained why each example happened which allows his listeners to actually picture an event that he is describing. He uses so many different types of examples that most people should be able to related to. Even if you are someone who does not work in an office, like a student for example, you can relate to be interrupted by your phone or by your teacher. I found the overall topic to be interesting and significant because work and sleep are things that people do everyday and will do for the rest of their lives.
2.
In Fried’s talk about doing work at work, he provides evidence that most people have most likely experienced. He discusses where and when most people claim they are the most productive by giving some examples of answers to the question he asks, “where do you go when you need to get something done?”. Fried also gives scenarios where people get distracted so they physically can’t do their work. Every piece of evidence that he gives, it is very clear as to how it supports his argument. For example, when 10 people are in a meeting for 1 hour, that is 10 people whose work was interrupted and 1 less hour of work that they are going to get to do. So, as Fried explains, thats 10 hours of work that the company is losing. He walks the audience through all of the examples and evidence that very clearly prove his point. What I found to be the most effective about his argument is the fact that he used a wide spread of examples, the more examples he uses, the larger amount of people are going to relate to it.
Zoe,
I think your admiration for Fried’s reliability is spot on because, in order to really reach an audience, there needs to be some common ground. As much as an audience wants to be taught something new, it is always refreshing to feel like there is a conversation together with the speaker, even if they are the only one speaking. I agree, Fried’s cycle of example, explanation, example, explanation was super effective. It was mainly effective in my eyes though, as well as yours, when the topic and conversation itself surrounds something almost anyone can relate to that can take on many shapes and forms. When he asked the audience questions, this also supported the success he had in maintaining a relatable conversation with the audience. In my experience, if I am listening to someone in a sea of people and am asked a question that could specifically pertain to me, I am almost always inclined to listen more closely.
Relatable examples can be really valuable types of evidence in an argument, and ensuring they are relatable requires close attention to rhetorical situation. In short, you need to understand your audience in order to gauge what they’ll be able to relate to. A person who does this sensitively can be a really effective rhetor. Audience matters a great deal.