Journal #4: Analyzing Dandelions: The Uncommon Weed

After reading through the transcript of Dandelions: The Uncommon Weed, I can conclude that Hirsch's rhetorical purpose is to inform her public speaking class about the health benefits and cooking purposes of dandelions, likely as a way to persuade them into incorporating dandelions into their diets. 

In an attempt to engage her audience immediately, Hirsch begins by asking questions regarding the plant's scientific name. After revealing that it is in fact the common dandelion, she uses a more grounded approach and acts her audience if they are familiar with the act of blowing the white fluff off of dandelions, to which they likely agreed. Although I do understand her method of starting with an overly complicated idea and then revealing that she will actually be referring to the most common weed, her example did feel a bit perplexing when she brought up the mention of "'Mama had a baby and its head popped off!'", as this is a phrase that holds no personal connection for someone like me, who has never heard that expression. Additionally, her remark of "if you haven't figured it out by now" before revealing that she is referring to dandelions does come off a bit condescending, almost as if we as the audience are expected to know the scientific name for a plant.

My personal gripes aside, Hirsch effectively sets up the argument she will be making and her authority in the subject matter (having come from a botany class, she may know more about dandelions than the average person). She also gives a brief preview of the two subtopics she will cover regarding dandelions, making her argument that of the topical structure. Although this is executed well, she does not have 3-5 main points for the body of her argument, making the later half of her speech feel drawn out and padded with filler rather than an additional purpose of the dandelion.

One significant benefit of her structuring that is noticeable from the introduction onwards is Hirsch's use of signposts. With as few changes in subtopics as she has in the speech, every occasion is properly marked by a phrase that clearly shows that she is advancing to another idea. However, the remaining 3 Ss are not fulfilled quite as well. Topic sentences are entirely nonexistent on a subtopic-by-subtopic basis, but each paragraph and change of ideas begins with a sentence that clearly states the main breakdown of what she will then discuss. Support is provided. Summaries, though, are not incorporated into the speech until the conclusion, making it easy for information to go through one ear and worm its way out the other.

Ultimately, Hirsch wrote a well-composed and understandable speech, even if it was lacking in a few of my personal likings. The introduction and conclusions followed the guidelines we discussed very closely, making those segments in particular very valuable as a reference when I begin to plan my speech.