Mary concludes her speech this way: "In the speech we have seen that organ donation saves lives, does not cause problems for grieving families, and is free for the donor. There are a lot of other good reasons that I could get into, but that should be enough to convince you to sign a donor card, and I have pamphlets here with instructions on how to do that. As the bumper sticker says, 'Don't take your organs to heaven. Heaven knows we need them here." Which is a legitimate critique of it?

This question is incomplete because the options are missing; here is the complete question:

Mary concludes her speech this way: "In the speech, we have seen that organ donation saves lives, does not cause problems for grieving families, and is free for the donor. There are a lot of other good reasons that I could get into, but that should be enough to convince you to sign a donor card, and I have pamphlets here with instructions on how to do that. As the bumper sticker says, 'Don't take your organs to heaven. Heaven knows we need them here." Which is a legitimate critique of it?

A. This will offend people who don't believe in the afterlife.

B. She doesn't signal the end of the speech.

C. She doesn't ask them to do anything.

D. She mentions other material she didn't discuss.

The correct answer is D. She mentions other material she didn't discuss.

Explanation:

The concluding section of a speech should summarize the most important points and mention once again the thesis statement or point of view the speaker explained during the speech. Due to this, it is appropriate Mary mentioned the advantages of organ donation, which seems to be the focus of her thesis statement.

However, it is not appropriate that in the end, she provided pamphlets to the audience with instructions on how to donate organs because she is introducing a completely new material she never mentioned and that is not part of the speech, which is not appropriate to conclude a speech.

whats the question you didnt post a question

explanation: