A SPEAKER’S GUIDEBOOK 4 TH EDITION CHAPTER 25 Developing Persuasive Arguments

A Reasonable Argument  Persuasive speeches build reasonable arguments using claims and evidence to change opinions or behaviors.  An argument is a stated position for or against an issue.  Core elements of an argument are claims, evidence, and warrants.

Question Arguing in the public arena does not include___ A. reasoning about issues. B. attacking personalities. C. culturally sensitive statements. D. opposing viewpoints. E. accurate depictions of evidence.

Components of an Argument

Claim  A claim is the declared state of affairs which you are trying to prove to your audience.  Your claim should be evident in your thesis and your main ideas of the body section of your speech.  Claims are supported by evidence.  Warrants link the claims and the evidence together.

Diagramming a Persuasive Argument 1. Write down your claim. 2. List each possible piece of evidence you have in support of the claim. 3. Write the warrants (justifications) that link the evidence to the claim.

Types of Persuasive Claims  Claims of Fact  Claims of Value  Claims of Policy

Claims of Fact  Change what people believe to be true  Based on scientific proof and concrete evidence  Speculative claims of fact answer questions of probability

Claims of Value  Based on underlying principles that can be examined.  Comparison of opposing ideals (good vs. bad, pretty vs. ugly)  Rooted in social or cultural beliefs 1963 Southern U.S. “Colored” Fountain

Claims of Policy  Definition: When a policy, law, or rule doesn’t accurately represent your opinion.  Some policies create problems, and a solution is offered by changing the policy.  Do we need a new policy?  How will you implement the new policy?  Is the new policy practical?

Discussion: Understanding Claims Topic = Abortion A claim of fact would be _______________. A claim of value would be _____________. A claim of policy would be _____________. You cannot argue across claims. Most controversial issues are not resolved because people do not understand the claim. Is it a fact, value, or policy?

Question What type of claim is this statement: “Cigarette prices should be lowered?” A. Fact B. Value C. Policy D. Evidence E. Warrant

Question What type of claim is this statement: “Title IX regulations harm male athletes?” A. Fact B. Value C. Policy D. Evidence E. Warrant

Question What type of claim is this statement: “Methane gases cause global warming?” A. Fact B. Value C. Policy D. Evidence E. Warrant

A SPEAKER’S GUIDEBOOK 4 TH EDITION CHAPTER 24 Using Evidence & Warrants

Kinds of Evidence A. Audience knowledge and opinions B. Speaker knowledge and opinions C. External evidence from support materials Question: Which kind of evidence is the strongest in proving your claim?

Types of Warrants  Motivational Warrants  Appeals to Tradition  Authoritative Warrants  Substantive Warrants include: Warrants by Cause Warrants by Sign Warrants by Analogy

Motivational Warrants  Use needs, desires, emotions, and values of listeners to convince them to accept claim  Are implied through narratives or visual aids  Some examples are: Good friendships and happy families Financial security Good health Clean environment Quality education

Authoritative Warrants  Rely on the listeners’ beliefs in the credibility of the evidence  Are based on audience acceptance of speaker credibility  Refer to well-known or respected persons who support the speaker’s claim

Substantive Warrants  Are based on the audience’s belief in factual evidence  Are when speakers factually link the evidence with the claim  Include causation, sign, and analogy

Warrants by Cause  Speakers often use cause-effect relationships as evidence to support a claim.  Relevant and accurate assertions are needed for the audience to believe the warrant.  Example: Our society attributes less competence to people who are older versus those who are younger.

Warrants by Sign  Infer that a close relationship exists between two variables; the presence or absence of one indicates the presence of absence of the other.  Example: A runny nose is an indicator of a cold.

Warrants by Analogy  Compare two similar cases.  Infer that what is true in one case is also true in the other.  Example: Claim: Students will like Dr. Honnacker’s speech class if he drops his absence policy. Evidence: Student satisfaction increased in Dr. Orlander’s math class when she dropped her absence policy. Warrant: The two classes are equal in respect to other factors that influence student satisfaction.

Question Which type of warrant is represented in this statement “Natural disasters lower employment rates in affected areas?” A. By cause B. Authoritative C. By sign D. Motivational E. By Analogy

A SPEAKER’S GUIDEBOOK 4 TH EDITION CHAPTER 25 Counterarguments & Fallacies

Counterpersuasion  There are two sides to every argument.  All attempts of persuasion are subject to counterpersuasion.  Listeners may be persuaded to accept your claims, and then have their minds changed by counterclaims.

Inoculation Effect  Like receiving a vaccine, by addressing or rebutting counterarguments briefly, the speaker can protect the audience against counterpersuasion.  If the speaker is aware of, but ignores counterclaims, speaker credibility can be impacted negatively.

Fallacies  Are errors in logical reasoning  Include incorrectly used proofs  Misrepresent credibility of experts  Misapply statistical principles: a. confuse median and average b. compare unlike percentages

Major Fallacies  Hasty generalization  False cause  Invalid analogy  Begging the question  Non sequiturs  Red herring  Ad hominem  Either-or  Bandwagon  Slippery slope

Reasoning Fallacies  Hasty generalization – a speaker jumps to a conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence  False cause (post hoc, ergo proctor hoc) – a speaker mistakenly assumes that the first event caused the second event just because the events occurred in that order  Invalid analogy – when two things being compared are not really alike  Begging the question – argument is presented as if it must be true when no evidence is given to prove its validity.  Non-sequiturs – the argument’s conclusion does not connect to the line of reasoning.

Other Fallacies  Red herring – using an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject  Ad hominem (against the man) – attacking the person rather than dealing with the real issue  Either-or (false dilemma) – forcing audiences to choose between two options when more options really exist  Bandwagon – assuming that because the idea is popular, it is good or right  Slippery slope – taking one step will lead to subsequent (bad) steps that cannot be prevented

Identify the Fallacy Error  In the words of one expert, “All across the U.S. elementary, middle, and high schools are bursting at the seams because of enrollment increases. The best short-term solution is to adopt a year-round school calendar so classrooms don’t sit empty during the summer.”

Answer A. False cause B. Begging the question C. Non-sequitur D. Hasty generalization E. Slippery slope

Identify the Fallacy Error  As Harrison Ford said in a recent interview, “America must act now to protect its national parks.” “If we do not take action right away”, Ford said, “the park system may be permanently damaged.”

Answer A. Slippery slope B. Misrepresented expert credibility C. Bandwagon D. Invalid analogy E. Comparing unlike percentages

Identify the fallacy error  The Department of Health and Human Services reports that single parents now head 25% of families with children under age 18 in the US. A staggering 54% of these families live below the poverty line, compared to 18% of all families with children. For families headed by females, the figure is 47% compared with 19% for families headed by males. By the year 2010, 50% of American families may be headed by single parents.

Answer  47% female heads of families plus  19% male heads of families leaves  34% of single parent families headed by ____ A. Non-sequitur B. Comparing unlike percentages C. False cause D. Hasty generalization E. Slippery slope

Chapter 25 Key Terms for Review argument claim evidence warrants claims of fact speculative claims claims of value claims of policy cultural norms cultural premises motivational warrants authoritative warrants substantive warrants warrants by cause warrants by sign warrants by analogy inoculation effect logical fallacy begging the question bandwagoning either-or fallacy ad hominem argument red herring fallacy hasty generalization non sequitur slippery slope appeal to tradition