zjones wrote:I've struggled to present a coherent monologue especially with the 10-minute planning phase -- some of my presentations have been nothing short of incoherent, stuttered disasters -- but I've come to the conclusion that I present better when I really care about the subject. Unfortunately I don't care about most random articles that come along. So how to fake a strong personal opinion about something I don't care about in 10 minutes tops ? I'm just going to keep practicing.
I got really good at faking opinions in my Advanced Placement (AP) classes in high school. Some think these classes are worthless, since they're not actually as rigorous as first-year classes in college according to their evaluations, but they did teach me some skills that I use and think about to this day. One of those skills is arguing for the sake of arguing. To do this, you have to be informed.
The classes are taught to the test, much like how the DELF/DALF or DELE tests work. That's why people say they aren't effective. People aren't taught to think outside the box, just check some boxes. But I think this could work in your favor. I recommended to another French learner that he use AP or IB curriculum and preparation materials to prepare for official French certification exams, because the tests are so similar in how they test their material.
When I was in AP Language and Composition in 2013-2014, there were three types of essays you had to learn to write. Synthesis, analysis, and argument. Synthesis tested your ability to take two or more passages on a given topic, mostly of differing opinions, and construct an argument from those sources. You could be pro or against the argument - and there was a third choice, to qualify. Choosing the third choice means you say both sides have their merits, but you don't agree with either.
Here's a document I found helpful that explains the choices. You could do this in the argument essay, too. Analysis tested your ability to break down a passage of a piece with "literary merit" (something chosen by the testers to be complex, but full of things to analyze, and of sufficient quality [i.e. good treatment of the subject, or "classic" status, but not always the latter]) and analyze the rhetoric within, from alliteration to the construction of sentences to argument-level ideas and how they relate to theme. The argument essay was the most fun because you could take ideas from your experience to answer the prompt. One prompt I remember was something like, "Adversity is good in all circumstances. Defend, challenge, or qualify." They deliberately pick prompts that are controversial to get a rise out of you, to see how well you can write.
I think studying any one of these formats of essay could help. But to succeed on an AP test, or any test of this format, you have to have information at your fingertips. In the synthesis essay, you are given bits of it to analyze and can use only that, but with the argument one, you have only your mind, and that is what your success is banked on. You need to know current events, your memories, books, studies - you name it - to get a good score. Sometimes the prompts are duds and you can't agree or disagree, but you may not be skilled enough to qualify. But
maybe you have just enough information to defend the assertion, even if it makes your skin crawl. The examiners don't care if you really support adversity in all situations. They don't know if you do - they can't know. They just want to see your ability to write well, even if you're writing simply. The best essays in this category use a variety of examples from various sources, quoting famous authors in the opening and switching to analyzing an obscure book in the first body paragraph with a focus on "why" and "how", all the mini arguments relating tightly to the whole.
I hope that helps some. If you have any questions, let me know. I loved my English classes.