Of the two versions that we as a class read and listened to from Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, I think that the audio version is more effective. I think that listening to the speech is more effective because you can see and hear their emotions, and that it only takes a short amount of time. These next few reasons and paragraphs should soon convince you to agree with me. With these reasons and pieces of evidence, this is why I think that the audio version of Al Gore’s speech is better than reading it.
I think that listening to the story conveys Al Gore’s point more effectively because it’s easy to tell when they’re using figurative language. For example: On minute 1:48 in the audio version of the speech, he says something humorous and you can hear the people laughing. This makes the audio version of the speech more effective …show more content…
In the audio version of the speech, it only took 21 minutes. Whereas reading the speech took us over an hour to read. This makes the audio version of Al Gore’s speech more effective because after a little while, it’s very easy to forget what you read. But for the audio version, it’s easy to remember what you read. As I conclude with these reasons, I hope that you agree with me that the audio version of Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech is better than the written version of it.
While others might disagree with me, this is why I think that they’re wrong. While others might argue that reading is more enjoyable than listening to it, they’re wrong because if you are like me, then you’d want to just get it over with and get all the information in my head at once. In other words, the audio version of the text is faster and tells us information a lot faster. This makes the audi version of the speech better because the faster you get information, the better the outcome. This leads me to the
I think that listening to the story conveys Al Gore’s point more effectively because it’s easy to tell when they’re using figurative language. For example: On minute 1:48 in the audio version of the speech, he says something humorous and you can hear the people laughing. This makes the audio version of the speech more effective …show more content…
In the audio version of the speech, it only took 21 minutes. Whereas reading the speech took us over an hour to read. This makes the audio version of Al Gore’s speech more effective because after a little while, it’s very easy to forget what you read. But for the audio version, it’s easy to remember what you read. As I conclude with these reasons, I hope that you agree with me that the audio version of Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech is better than the written version of it.
While others might disagree with me, this is why I think that they’re wrong. While others might argue that reading is more enjoyable than listening to it, they’re wrong because if you are like me, then you’d want to just get it over with and get all the information in my head at once. In other words, the audio version of the text is faster and tells us information a lot faster. This makes the audi version of the speech better because the faster you get information, the better the outcome. This leads me to the