This persuasive speech was developed by an advanced student who was a committed consumer advocate. Karen Anderson researched the topic extensively and found powerful supporting materials to appeal to listeners. Convincing speeches can be organized by using reasons or a problem-solution sequence. This body of this speech is arranged according to the reasons organizational sequence.
1 The speaker arouses audience curiosity by starting with an example.
|
1 A man, who worked the night shift, got off work one morning and drove his Cadillac into a repair shop for servicing. He had a repair order written up, went back to his car and for some unknown reason crawled in the back seat and fell asleep. When he woke up, much to his surprise, he realized that it was now afternoon and no one had been out to service his car yet. He returned to the service desk and a cashier handed him a repair order which was completely filled out listing, in detail, all parts used and labor performed on the vehicle. The cashier then demanded full payment before the owner could get his car keys back. Does this story about auto repair fraud sound incredible or far-fetched? Well, after you hear what I have to tell you today, you may not find an example like this so hard to believe.
|
2 The speaker states the proposition of policy followed by the thesis, which contains three reasons. The reasons represent the core of the speaker’s argument and identify the three numerals of the body.
|
2 The auto repair industry should be strictly regulated because of unnecessary repairs, incompetent work, and because regulations will help protect the consumer.
|
3 Karen establishes support for the first reason by citing a statistic from the U.S. Department of Transportation and using a quotation from Ralph Nader, a well-known consumer advocate.
|
3 Americans are being ripped off by unnecessary repairs. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader writes about he U.S. Department of Transportation’s study of the auto repair industry in the foreword of a book entitled Auto Repair Shams and Scams. The survey indicates that today approximately $40 billion a year associated with auto repairs are unnecessary. The major reasons: “Unneeded repairs due to inadequate diagnosis; faulty repairs for which owners did not get their money back; unneeded repairs sold with possible fraudulent intent; accidents due to faulty repairs.” Mr. Nader further comments that this sector of the auto industry has done little to reduce fraud and incompetence over the last ten years.
|
4 The speaker poses a question to threaten listeners’ safety and security. The example from a credible source is further support that consumers are being taken advantage of.
|
4 Think it won’t happen to you? An article in a June 1992 issue of Business Week reported, in what is now a much-publicized case, that Sears Auto Centers in California had “systematically ripped off customers.” According to the article, Ruth Hernandez of Stockton, California, went to Sears for new tires. The auto technician who serviced Ms. Hernandez’s Honda “insisted” the car also needed new struts with a hefty additional cost of $419.95. Ms. Hernandez went for a second opinion and was told the struts did not need replacing. Furthermore, according to the article, Sears consistently charged consumers an average of $235 for unnecessary repairs.
|
5 The visual aids add interest and provide concrete examples of attempts to defraud consumers.
|
5 Here are two ways that consumers pay for unnecessary repairs. You can unknowingly purchase so-called “gypsy parts” -- that is, an inferior auto part, such as a common oil filter, which has been repackaged in a box with a well-known brand name and passed off to you as a quality product. Here is an example. [Shows slide comparing two oil filters: One is a “gypsy part” and the other is a legitimate filter.] One oil filter has less paper, which provides less filtering capability. The other contains more paper and will last longer. Upon close examination, the difference is obvious. Or what about the technician who deliberately sabotages your car for profit, and whose favorite weapon is an ice pick? [Holds up ice pick.] Now, although these instances are rare, they happen to out-of-state motorists who set themselves up as easy targets by leaving their cars with the attendants while they grab snacks or make necessary pit-stops. Returning the car, the unsuspecting motorists are informed by attendants that a leaking tire must be patched, or better yet, replaced with a brand new tire.
|
6 The speaker wisely uses this example as the last supporting element for reason one. The emotional incident is verified by a credible primary source. Notice the speaker uses concrete language -- “despicable crime,” “held hostage” -- to elicit an emotional response from the audience.
|
6 Then there is blatant fraud. I conducted a telephone interview with Tom Hopkins, a lead investigator for the Bureau of Automotive Repair in California, who related the following despicable crime. An elderly California couple took their motor home in for repairs. The disabled wife remained in the motor home while the vehicle was raised on the lift in the repair shop. Employees removed the suspension system, brakes, and wheels. The disabled woman was literally held hostage in the air until her husband paid the demanded fee to get the wheels and the other equipment put back on their vehicle.
|
7 Although she is careful not to indict the entire auto repair industry, the speaker clearly indicates that listeners could be at risk.
|
7 These incidents represent a minority, and I want to stress that the majority of the auto repair industry is caring and reputable, but these cases are real and they could happen to you.
|
8 The external transition connects reasons one and two (numerals I and II of the body).
|
8 Not only do Americans experience unnecessary repairs; we are also subjected to incompetence.
|
9 A survey and quotation from a verifiable source present early supporting evidence for reason two.
|
9 In his book From Bumper to Bumper, Bob Sikorsky did a remarkable survey of the auto repair business across American. Posing as an average driver, Mr. Sikorsky pulled into 225 repair shops with a simple problem: a loose spark-plug wire. He reported fair and competent repairs in only 28 percent of the stops, a satisfactory repair only 44 percent of the time, and, in Sikorsky’s own words, “I was victimized by incompetence, cheated, sold unnecessary parts, . . . overcharged, and lied to.”
|
10 Another quotation and detailed example provide further evidence that consumers are victims of incompetence.
|
10 Sal Fariello states alarming information regarding brake repairs from his twenty-year involvement with the automotive industry. Fariello explains that brake discs often require machining on a lathe to correct vibration or noise. But the likelihood of incompetence work is high. He advises that if a brake shop tells you that your brakes need to be machined, ask them to measure the final thickness. If they resist, it may be because they can’t read a micrometer, which means they shouldn’t be in the brake repair business. He concludes by saying: “I’ve seen some incredible butcher jobs come out of these places as far as brake work is concerned. For the sake of your own safety, make sure you are doing business with a competent brake mechanic.
|
|
11 Incompetence is not always intentional. It is often a result of the sophisticated high-tech machines we all drive and the failure of some technicians to keep up with the technology. A service assistant may be able to change the oil in your car but lack the more advanced skills to diagnose a problem in the engine, emission system, or transmission.
|
12 The computer-generated visual aid introduces humor, stimulates interest, and also makes the point that anyone can go into the auto repair business.
|
12 One important factor that contributes to incompetence is the lack of regulation. Let me explain. [Holds up sign reading “Karen’s Car Care Center -- Unlimited Major and Minor Repair Service -- Major Credit Cards Accepted.”] Pretty impressive, huh? Listen, I’ll even adjust your brakes for half-price, and I’ll throw in a complete diagnostic muffler analysis for free -- but I don’t do windows! Trust me! Anyone with a computer and a graphics program can make a sign like this as I did, call themselves an auto technician, and open up a shop. Nothing stands in their way. How could I get away with this, you ask? Well, there is no mandatory licensing or certification program. There is an organization called Automotive Service Excellence, or ASE, which, according to their newsletter, is designed to help consumers “to distinguish between competent and incompetent mechanics.” ASE administers an excellent voluntary certification program through paper-and-pencil testing in conjunction with two years’ automotive repair experience. But the key word is “voluntary.” Anyone can hang out a sign as long as they don’t use the term “certified mechanic.”
|
13 The external transition links reason two with reason three of the body (numerals II and III).
|
13 Since it is clear that incompetence occurs in the auto repair industry, let’s consider how regulation will help to protect the consumer.
|
14 Karen uses an extended example to explain how regulation can protect the consumer. She returns to the Sears example stated earlier in the speech and describes how the California BAR is used to resolve complaints and abuses in the industry. The speaker uses a slide projector to display factual information that reinforces the narration. The speaker indicates that the information is verified by a source.
|
14 California is one example of a governmental control program that benefits the consumer and the auto repair industry as well. Remember Ms. Hernandez from California who did not have confidence in what Sears was advising her to do? She had a place to file a complaint, and was assured that a remedy would be found. This is an excellent example of mandated control through the California Bureau of Automotive Repair, or BAR. [Displays slide describing information about BAR.] Kate McGuire, Public Information Officer for the BAR, provided me with information about this agency. It was established in 1971 to prevent abuses in the auto repair industry. With a staff of 600, working in thirty-six field offices, the BAR operates on an annual budget of $70 million, which is funded by the smog check program and a $200 registration fee paid by auto repair businesses. It provides consumers with mediation centers that handle over forty thousand formal complaints a year. This agency also sends representatives to assist and support consumers at hearing in small claims court. And money -- some $4.6 million alone -- was returned to consumers from auto repair shops in 1991–92.
|
15 The quotation from a primary source is powerful support for reason three.
|
15 In addition, the Bureau conducts undercover sting operations to snare dishonest technicians or detect fraudulent repair shops. BAR investigator Hopkins said that they can’t inspect all of the repair shops. But he explained: “We have sophisticated means of intelligence gathering. We have field offices, consumer complaints, and field investigators -- we know what’s going on. We want to put the bad guys out of business. We want to revoke their licenses so that no one goes to them.” Talk about protection!
|
16 The speaker presents the principle argument of opponents to acknowledge the objections to regulation. The argument is supported by a credible source. Here the speaker refutes the opposition with a clear rebuttal argument, which is also supported by a source.
|
16 Now there are many in the auto repair industry who feel that the government or state should not be involved in overseeing the industry. Rick Glenn, the Auto Service Technology professor I interviewed, commented that many technicians feel that government or state regulation would impose a cumbersome layer of bureaucracy which could only make matters worse. But BAR investigator Tom Hopkins told me that in California the auto industry is not hostile to the bureau. In fact, he said that honest auto repair businesses welcome the BAR because it helps to keep a level playing-field and put the dishonest shops out of business. So you can see that regulation does not need to be antagonistic to the repair industry.
|
17 Karen returns to the Sears example to provide additional reinforcement for her rebuttal argument.
|
17 Had the BAR not existed, we might never have discovered the Sears scandal. It was the chief of the BAR who launched an investigation after noticing a pattern of consumer complaints against Sears Auto Centers. The Bureau conducted thirty-eight undercover runs at thirty-three Sears shops statewide in California. The investigation exposed Sears’ unethical practices, and forced the company to change its ways.
|
18 To begin the conclusion, the speaker refers back to the example she used in the introduction. Karen ends this convincing speech with a hard-hitting challenge to the audience.
|
18 Do you remember the man with the Cadillac I referred to in the opening of my speech? Well that true story was told to me by Dré Brungardt, an Automotive Consultant on a WTTR radio show in Westminster, Maryland. That example is known as a “wall job” in the auto repair industry, because when you return to the auto shop, you find your car parked next the same wall, untouched, where you left it but with a repair invoice attached. We don’t have to take this type of behavior. We don’t have to be at the mercy of fraudulent or incompetent auto repair companies. The vast majority of men and women in this business are decent and hardworking. But we need to ensure this same high standard of decency throughout the industry. Let’s apply the brakes. Let’s require strict ground rules.
|
