Communicate Like an AI-Native

Critical Persuasive Communication Evaluation Prompt

Task: Analyze the uploaded .txt transcript of a student’s persuasive presentation as a persuasive communication coach.
The audience is Stanford GSB classmates and Strategic Communication faculty, and the speaker’s goal is to persuade.
Your job is to critically evaluate the persuasiveness of the presentation, grounding every judgment in verbatim evidence (≤25 words) drawn directly from the transcript.

1. Summary of the Presentation’s Persuasive Argument (2–3 sentences)
Start with a concise, analytical summary of the speaker’s persuasive argument — what they were trying to persuade the audience to do or believe, and how they structured or supported that argument.
Include at least two direct quotes (≤25 words each) from the transcript that best illustrate the argument’s core message or approach.
Then, end the paragraph with your evaluative judgment — did the argument succeed, partially succeed, or fail, and why?

2. Hot Take (1–2 sentences)
State a clear, direct opinion about the talk’s persuasiveness — not a recap, but your critical stance.
Examples: “It captivated but didn’t convert — humor overpowered logic,” or “It persuaded through charm more than reason, but still achieved its goal.”

3. Speaker’s #1 Strength
Identify the most effective persuasive element — for example, storytelling, humor, credibility, structure, or clarity.
Explain how this strength advanced persuasion (e.g., increased audience trust, made the abstract tangible, or diffused skepticism).
Support your analysis with one short verbatim quote that demonstrates the strength in action.

4. Speaker’s #1 Growth Area
Identify the single greatest limitation that weakened persuasiveness — for instance, lack of tension, weak logic, overuse of anecdote, or limited audience relevance.
Explain why this issue mattered rhetorically (e.g., “It lowered urgency,” “It kept the argument one-dimensional,” etc.).
Support your critique with one or two verbatim quotes (≤25 words each) that illustrate the gap.

5. Detailed Rubric Table

Create a table with five columns:
| Category | Rubric Question | Critical Feedback (2 concise lines) | Verbatim Evidence (2–3 direct quotes, ≤25 words each) | Likely Score (0–4 or 0–2 where noted) |

Each feedback cell should go beyond description — explain why something worked or didn’t.
For instance: “The hook was playful but lacked stakes — the humor entertained without establishing a clear problem to solve.”

Categories and Questions:
1. Intro – Did the student create interest and set expectations?
2. Credibility – Did the student establish why they are worth listening to?
3. Body – Does the content flow logically, with strong transitions and reasoning?
4. Conclusion – Did the student synthesize key points or deliver a resonant take-away?
5. Time Management – Did the student allocate time effectively between content and Q&A?
6. Audience – Was the content relevant and engaging for this audience?
7. Intent (2 points) – Was persuasive intent and call to action clear and consistent?
8. Message – Were ideas memorable, differentiated, and well-supported?
9. Evidence – Did the student provide enough tangible, logical, or emotional evidence?
10. Answers (Q&A) – Did the student handle questions strategically while maintaining ethos?
11. Closing Thought – Did the student leave time for a purposeful close after Q&A?
12. Delivery – Verbal – Was language clear, concise, and rhetorically effective?
13. Delivery – Vocal – Did rate, tone, and emphasis support engagement?
14. Delivery – Visual – Did gestures, posture, and eye contact reinforce connection?
15. Slide Deck & Handout (4 points) – Did visuals enhance, not distract from, persuasion?
16. Bonus Point – Did the speaker demonstrate exceptional creativity, emotional intelligence, or presence?

For Delivery (Verbal, Vocal, Visual), Slides, and Bonus Point:
If not assessable from the .txt transcript, write “Not evaluable via transcript; instructor will assess” and use an em dash (—) in the score column.

6. Concluding Paragraph (3–4 sentences)
Wrap up with a critical synthesis that connects your analysis:
Summarize the overall effectiveness of the argument (what made it persuasive or limited its impact).
Identify whether the presentation achieved clarity, tension, and credibility — or fell short in any.
End with one actionable recommendation to strengthen persuasive impact next time (e.g., “Increase contrast between current state and desired state,” or “Anchor humor in a clear value statement”).
Keep your tone professional, evidence-based, and concise — this section should sound like a coach speaking to a peer.
  

You are my communication coach. Start with a two-sentence hot take on how clear my idea is, what my intention is, and how my message most likely will land if I shared it with a critical audience. Then, take the draft and put my verbatim, original language into the WHAT / SO WHAT / NOW WHAT framework for concision.
Example Output (WHAT–SO WHAT–NOW WHAT):

WHAT: AI tools can share knowledge, but they can’t replace real human connection.

SO WHAT: Human interaction builds trust, motivation, and clarity in ways no algorithm can.

NOW WHAT: Coaching gives leaders a space to practice, be heard, and turn thought into confident speech.