The first group choose a common topic in the campus and the second treat love-if not more common than friendship-a riveting human relationship. Both groups give their advices on how to maintaining the respective relationship, but the tactics they use to demonstrate their perspectives have slight differences. Group I tends to put out their perspective and explicate it through talks between group members. The advantage is its naturalness but the disadvantage is also obvious that the audience may get lost in the frequent questioning and answering so it is hard to catch the key of what they want to express. Group II has advantage over group I in expressing the main point just by one person. As an audience, I can get the reasoning about the issue clearly. But the long demonstration seems like a discourse. So the balance between naturalness and explicitness is the main problem of the two
The first group choose a common topic in the campus and the second treat love-if not more common than friendship-a riveting human relationship. Both groups give their advices on how to maintaining the respective relationship, but the tactics they use to demonstrate their perspectives have slight differences. Group I tends to put out their perspective and explicate it through talks between group members. The advantage is its naturalness but the disadvantage is also obvious that the audience may get lost in the frequent questioning and answering so it is hard to catch the key of what they want to express. Group II has advantage over group I in expressing the main point just by one person. As an audience, I can get the reasoning about the issue clearly. But the long demonstration seems like a discourse. So the balance between naturalness and explicitness is the main problem of the two