I was intrigued by Ben’s elevator pitch because – as another student mentioned – he presented his artifact in a negative light rather than praise it. This was the correct approach since the artifact’s message about the effectiveness of the “Duck & Cover” technique during nuclear attacks had no solid foundation. The fact that the educational video was animated, including a silly turtle character, further increases confusion over the thinking behind this video. I have never seen the video that Ben is discussing but I would be willing to bet that there is at least one scene where the turtle ducks and covers by retreating into his shell, as if the commonplace phrase wasn’t self-explanatory enough.

Ben did a great job of presenting his artifact with a clear, confident voice, valid historical reasoning, and a touch of humor that brought the claim together nicely. I actually think it would’ve been great if we could have seen a quick clip from the video. Despite the time restriction, seeing just a small snippet of the artifact would have given the audience an even better idea of just how outlandish the artifact is.

Just like with my artifact, which is also centered around a questionable commonplace, corroborating claims with historical support will be essential to developing a main point. I think that in any case involving a commonplace, seeing if this phrase has held up throughout applicable events in the past is critical. If a commonplace has proven to stand the test of time, then it is much more likely that it will successfully apply to the next situation as well. I’m excited to see what Ben does with his artifact and how he’ll dig deeper into the historical context of the anti-nuke turtle.