You think it's a winner, huh?" "You got that right, Omar.

"Kendra, I heard you telling Jim about the speech you're giving tomorrow. You think it's a winner, huh?" "You got that right, Omar. I'm going to have Bardston eating out of the palm of my hand." "You sound confident." "This time I have reason to be. See, Professor Bardston's been talking about the importance of audience adaptation. These last two weeks that's all we've heard—adaptation, adaptation." "What does she mean?" "Talking about something in a way that really relates to people personally." "OK—so how are you going to do that?" "Well, you see, I'm giving this speech on abortion. Now here's the kick. Bardston let it slip that she's a supporter of Right to Life. So, what I'm going to do is give this informative speech on the Right to Life movement. But I'm going to discuss the major beliefs of the movement in a way that'll get her to think that I'm a supporter. I'm going to mention aspects of the movement that I know she'll like." "But I've heard you talk about how you're pro-choice." "I am—all the way. But by keeping the information positive, she'll think I'm a supporter. It isn't as if I'm going to be telling any lies or anything." In a speech, is it ethical to adapt in a way that resonates with your audience but isn't in keeping with what you really believe? Why or why not? I do not believe this is ethical Could Kendra have achieved her goal using a different method? How?