I did it on the "Ruining it for the Rest of Us" episode because it sounded the most intriguing and somehow, i can relate: I feel like i was ruining it for the "rest of us" back in high school. So I can relate.
1: What do you think is the concept or question the episode focuses on? Is it a simply focus, or is the focus complicated and complex? How many smaller, branched-off, related questions are there? What are they?
The episode focuses on how one person can just ruin productivity, like one bad apple spoils the whole bunch that was for sale. And it is being seen in an experiment where a bunch of people work together in groups on a certain assignment but one person is the “bad apple” of the group and doesn’t help or contribute to the project. It also went over a very severe, serious case of “Bad Apple Syndrome” where a non-vaccinated child has contracted measles and started an outbreak, infecting people left and right all because the parents just chose not to vaccinate their child.
2: How was the "inquisitive spirit" of the speaker/searcher portrayed/demonstrated?
It was demonstrated by how each speaker started to explain each part of the story or experiment or something. Each speaker explored the topic they were talking about, and just went on and on, covering each aspect of the topic: how it started, the effects of the origin of whatever happened, etc. And the audio featured quite a bunch of interviews, exploring each and every side of the topic.
3: How -through what lenses/perspectives- is the concept or question considered/examined? How many viewpoints has this example been examined through? How can you see them (different voices/presenters/speakers/experiences)?
The concept is examined as though these people want to know EVERYTHING about the topic of a bad apple ruining the rest of them. It has been examined through both sides, mostly through the eyes of the concerned parents who chose not to vaccine their child(ren). And I can see the different viewpoints through the different voices and the different presenters.....
4:Does the episode examine multiple aspects of the topic/concept/questions? Do you feel that the writing was trying to make a case, or persuade, or simply explore the topic/concept/questions? Was it all told as a narrative, or were there some instances of hard data gathering?
The episode did examine multiple aspects of the topic and asked good questions about the issue. It provided a very clear example of a "bad apple" spoiling the rest, with the measles outbreak of so many years ago. And it was all told as a narrative that explores the topic, with some data gathering--not too hard data gathering, but enough to present the information and tell the stories.
God, I love this audio! And Mike Birbiglia was on there! Yay! I just saw him last week! He's awesome! I recommend seeing him!