Delivering a speech in a conversational style from a well-developed and researched outline is termed as <u>extemporaneous speaking.</u>
Extemporaneous speaking refers to the delivery of a carefully prepared speech that has been perfected, spoken informally while using brief notes. And a speaker who reads from a prepared manuscript can be effective when speaking extemporaneously.
Extemporaneous speeches are not read or memorized, so the speaker must be able to "think on their feet," which can be stressful but also foster a high degree of spontaneity and produce a natural, conversational style.
Extemporaneous speeches are more spontaneous because they are almost entirely created in the moment. However, because they demand extensive planning and research, they typically have much greater depth and are therefore typically the preferred approach.
Find more on extemporaneous speaking at : brainly.com/question/15705863
#SPJ4
Answer:
VACANCY!
The firm Kapoors Ltd, Industrial Area, Bengaluru has a vacancy for the positions of two structural engineers in Chennai, India.
Interested applicants should send their resume and letters of recommendation to kapoor.com.
For further enquires, call 01-023-111.
Either C or D I would say. Compared it to steel and plastic, but also related it to using slaves to get the sugar
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
Answer: If people knew what was happening in the other parts of Panem then they might turn against the capital knowing the horrible living conditions in which say Katniss’s lives in. What people don’t know doesn’t hurt them. So it benefits the Capital by the amount of control they have.
