Creating an effective introduction 184.108.40.206: further guidance and examples
The most important point to remember about the introduction and conclusion of the presentation is that they have a job to do in telling the audience something about the presentation. The introduction tells them what to expect: it should identify the subject matter of the presentation and explain the stages that are going to be followed in order to talk about that subject matter. The conclusion should draw together the points that you have made and demonstrate how they answer the question posed by the presentation.
You have probably heard the old joke about the three stages of a presentation: (1) tell them what you’re going to tell them, (2) tell them what you want to tell them, and (3) tell them what you’ve told them. This corresponds to the introduction (what are you going to talk about), the main body (content), and the conclusion (what you have talked about) of the presentation.
The introduction is particularly important as it orientates the audience to what they can expect to hear from you. Think about your own lectures. It is very confusing if your lecturer dives straight into the substance of the lecture without giving it a context. Remember that you need to tell the audience what you are going to talk about and give them a clue as to the structure that you are going to follow. This might sound like the introduction to an essay and, to a great extent, it does fulfil the same role but you must use good spoken English for your presentation rather than good written English. Things that you would write in an essay rarely sound as effective when they are spoken so aim for a presentation style which is chatty and informative without being overly formal.
Presentation A: Has the Human Rights Act 1998 eroded Parliamentary sovereignty?
The topic of this presentation is the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on Parliamentary sovereignty. In order to give this subject a little context, I will start by outlining the traditional view of Parliamentary sovereignty—what you could call the Dicean view—and then spend a little time explaining some general points about the enactment of the Human Rights Act. Once I’ve covered these points, I’ll bring them together by tackling the central question that this presentation asks which is whether the Human Rights Act has eroded Parliamentary sovereignty.
I’ve been asked today to consider whether the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 has eroded Parliamentary sovereignty—that is, is Parliament less sovereign now than it was before the Act was introduced. Although I am working on the assumption that you are all familiar with the traditional view of sovereignty, I will take a few moments at the beginning of the presentation to remind you of its key features before moving on to consider whether this has been eroded by the Human Rights Act.
Presentation B: The right to silence
[Silence for thirty seconds looking at the audience]. What do you think of my presentation so far? Not very informative, is it? In some situations, when information is needed in order to investigate a crime, silence—the failure to speak—can be really obstructive. However, compelling someone to speak to incriminate themselves goes against one of the fundamental principles of our criminal justice system. It is this dilemma that is at the heart of my presentation today as I shall explore some of the key issues associated with the right of a person arrested of an offence to remain silent in the face of police questioning. In doing this, I will give a brief historical overview of the right to silence, consider the limitations placed upon that right by legislation, and then consider how the courts have interpreted this legislation. I will conclude by commenting on the extent of the right to silence today.
The law of evidence seeks to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of society—to be protected from criminal activity by the apprehension and prosecution of offenders—and the rights of an individual accused of criminal wrongdoing. The tension between these two conflicting rights is particularly evident in relation to the right to silence. Should those accused of wrongdoing be granted protection against self-incrimination that is enshrined in the right to silence or should this right be removed in the interests of society? This presentation will explore this issue, taking into account legislation and its interpretation