Book All Semester Assignments at 50% OFF! ORDER NOW

Introduction

The main purpose of this paper is to provide a critique of the presentation developed by S00327329. This presentation explains the impact of different external factors on the Australian iron ore mining industry. There was a lot of information provided by him on the industry and its impacts. These factors are global demand, technological advancements, competitors, AUD against USD valuation, and economic decline in China. One can say that these external factors are technological and economic from the PESTLE analysis of the industry (Çitilci and Akbalık 2020). This critique will include the analysis of the presentation with the help of how it was presented, the use of language, the credibility of the data, and more.

Critique

The information in the presentation is ample to understand the economic factors that might affect the growth of the industry in the future. This can be understood from the data provided by the researcher on each and every topic. For example, the key metrics section where this industry could suffer a decline in revenue by 53% from a global perspective. This is a valid concern for the Australian to have strategies in order to reduce that. The introductory part explains the key external factors that may or may not affect the industry and have been pointed out in the next slide (Nguyen et al., 2021). This presentation solely focuses on the economic and external environmental factors that make the presentation so thorough on the same factor. It would not have been possible if the whole PESTEL analysis of the industry had been applied to determine external environment factors. The depth of information has made this presentation quite easy to understand from a reader’s point of view. The influences of these factors on the industry have been described very well by the researcher.

Moving toward the negatives of the presentation. It can be understood that each slide consists of too much content. This content should have been in the speaker notes. Too much content related to the explanation, evaluation, and analysis of these key external environmental factors that might harm the Australian iron ore mining industry should have been in the speaker notes. Moreover, the utilisation of the data is good for the research and explanation of the facts, however, it must be properly in the text cited which was done by the researcher (Stenfors and Kajamaa 2020). It makes it harder for the readers to correlate the point made by the researcher with references provided by him at the end of the presentation. When writing these presentations, it is necessary to proofread them before presenting them (Amano et al. 2023). There can be many language and typography errors which are present in this presentation. For example: the first line of the introduction part 1 slide, “Iron ore mining in Australia is one of Australia’s most crucial industries for our economy’. It could have been written in a better way where using Australia two times in the same sentence was not necessary.

The presentation could have been better if all external environmental factors using the PESTEL analysis had been used (Vlados and Chatzinikolaou 2019). It only focused on the economic factors. Most of the data provided by the researcher is focused on a global level and not on the specific country that has been chosen for the presentation. For instance, the graph on slide 7 shows the world price of iron which is not focused on Australia. It would have been better if both of these data had been used comparatively. If one cannot find the country-specific graph then they must find some sort of relatable information on the same and cite it. There are inaccuracies in the data provided by the researcher. The presenter on slide 11 says that if the value of AUD appreciates against USD then it is good for the industry which has been forecasted for the next five years (Kim et al. 2023). In every instance, the presenter is presenting based on forecasting, but in this slide, he is more focused on the present situation due to the factors affecting the industry. The main point of the presentation was to relate these factors' influence over the industry decision-making process. It was cut short with just one slide on the same leaving the reader confused. In that single slide, one paragraph was for influence and the other was the recommendation for the industry. And none of that information is backed up by the evidence.

In this presentation, many things could have been used in order to make it more informational and presentational from the reader’s perspective. The first thing was the correct in-text citations of the sources utilised for the data used. With the help of proofreading, there could have been fewer grammatical and sentence structure errors. Explanation of the facts should have been in the speaker notes instead of the slides so that slides could have only facts that should have been explained with the help of speaker notes (Roberts et al. 2020). On slide 6, the overlapping of the text and image made the text hard to read, this could have been taken care of by cropping in order to make the text clearly visible. These small things could have made the presentation much better and more effective for the audience it has been created for. Overloading the presentation with this much amount of text takes the importance of presentation out of the equation. Finally, in presentations making bullet points is recommended as it is considered more effective for the reader to understand, and for more information, they can use the speaker's notes.

Conclusion

From this critique, the researcher must understand what was wrong with his presentation and must not make such errors next time. By focusing on the negative points from the critique, he can do much better with his presentations. This critique also focused on the positives of this presentation and provided recommendations for the researcher to make it more effective from the audience's perspective.

References

Amano, T., Ramírez-Castañeda, V., Berdejo-Espinola, V., Borokini, I., Chowdhury, S., Golivets, M., Juan David González-Trujillo, Montaño-Centellas, F., Kumar Paudel, White, R.L. and Diogo Veríssimo (2023). The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science. PLOS Biology , [online] 21(7), pp.e3002184–e3002184. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184.

Çitilci, T. and Akbalık, M. (2020). The Importance of PESTEL Analysis for Environmental Scanning Process . [online] Handbook of Research on Decision-Making Techniques in Financial Marketing. Available at: https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/the-importance-of-pestel-analysis-for-environmental-scanning-process/241707.

Kim, Y., Ghosh, A., Topal, E. and Chang, P. (2023). Performance of different models in iron ore price prediction during the time of commodity price spike. Resources Policy , [online] 80, p.103237. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103237.

Nguyen, H.P., Le, P.Q.H., Pham, V.V., Nguyen, X.P., Balasubramaniam, D. and Hoang, A.-T. (2021). Application of the Internet of Things in 3E (efficiency, economy, and environment) factor-based energy management as smart and sustainable strategy. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects , pp.1–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2021.1954110.

Roberts, J.J., Lightbody, R., Low, R. and Elstub, S. (2020). Experts and evidence in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study. Policy Sciences . doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09367-x.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A. and Bennett, D. (2020). How to Assess the Quality of Qualitative Research. The Clinical Teacher , 17(6), pp.596–599.

Vlados, C. and Chatzinikolaou, D. (2019). Methodological Redirections for an Evolutionary Approach of the External Business Environment. Journal of Management and Sustainability , [online] 9, p.25. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jms9&div=17&id=&page=.

Get Quote in 5 Minutes*

Applicable Time Zone is AEST [Sydney, NSW] (GMT+11)
Upload your assignment
  • 1,212,718Orders

  • 4.9/5Rating

  • 5,063Experts

Highlights

  • 21 Step Quality Check
  • 2000+ Ph.D Experts
  • Live Expert Sessions
  • Dedicated App
  • Earn while you Learn with us
  • Confidentiality Agreement
  • Money Back Guarantee
  • Customer Feedback

Just Pay for your Assignment

  • Turnitin Report

    $10.00
  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

    $35.00Per Hour
  • Live Session 1-on-1

    $40.00Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

    $25.00
  • Total

    Free
  • Let's Start

Get AI-Free Assignment Help From 5000+ Real Experts

Order Assignments without Overpaying
Order Now

My Assignment Services- Whatsapp Tap to ChatGet instant assignment help

refresh