1. The Reasoning Process

2. Learning Objectives After reading the chapter, you should be able to: 1. Identify characteristics of reasoning in the media age 2. Describe the components of Toulmin’s model of reasoning and apply them to contemporary arguments 3. Understand the concept of narratives and how to evaluate narratives as reasoning 4. Identify tests of reasoning and use them to evaluate arguments

3. Key Terms Reasoning Claim Data Premise Evidence Example Statistics Testimony Warrant Inductive reasoning Deductive reasoning Syllogism Enthymeme Narrative Fallacy

4. The Reasoning Process Cognitive information often takes the form of a belief, which is an idea we have about what is true and false Beliefs are based on evidence and reasoning, which makes a rational link between the evidence and the conclusion Reasoning is one way that persuaders give value to their products, services, or ideas

5. “Occupy UCD” Demonstration, Davis, California A University of California David police officer pepper sprays students during their sit-in at an “Occupy UCD” demonstration in Davis, California. What does this photograph prove? What does this photograph not prove?

6. Reasoning in the Media Age Two aspects of reasoning today: 1. Persuaders today typically make assertions rather than present research to support their claim 2. When persuaders do offer proof, they tend to use dramatic and visual examples

7. Toulmin’s Model of Reasoning Components of Toulmin’s model: Claims Data Warrant Qualifiers Rebuttal Backing

8. Toulmin’s Model of Reasoning

9. Claims Claim – a statement the communicates a persuader’s message to an audience Whether stated or implied, claims involve two related concepts 1. Content – the data that supports a claim and gives it persuasive force 2. Form – makes it possible to move from the data to the claim Michael G. Cruz (1998) – when persuaders state their claims explicitly, audience members better comprehend the message The more explicit the persuader’s claim, the greater the attitude change

10. Data Data – serve as the facts from which persuaders make claims George Ziegelmueller and Jack Key (1997) – distinguish between two types of data 1. Premises – beliefs that audience members have about their world; reflect primitive beliefs 2. Evidence – data gathered from sources external to the audience and offered in support of a claim

11. Premises 1. Perceptual premises – statements about the nature of the world and objects in the world 2. Value premises – concern the worth of something Reflect primitive beliefs Learned at an early age Central to belief system Not easily changed

12. Evidence 1. Examples – descriptions of actual or hypothetical cases, events, or situations 2. Statistics – a field of science concerned with theories and techniques of data analysis 3. Testimony – a statement about a given topic Factual – given by a witness in a court of law Expert – interprets examples or statistics, providing meaning

13. Evidence Descriptive statistics – organize and summarize observational information 1. Frequency distributions – frequency of occurrence 2. Measures of central tendency – mean, median, and mode all considered an “average” 3. Correlations – relationship between two variables Inferential statistics – generalize beyond actual observation

14. Evidence Measures of central tendency – average Mean – add together all values in a data set and divide by the number of values Median – the score that appears at the midpoint of a list of numbers arranged in order Mode – the value that occurs most often

15. Evidence Inferential statistics test hypotheses – compares test groups with control groups to determine if a variable administered to the test group produces significantly different results from those for the control group t tests ANOVA – analysis of variance MANOVA – multivariant analysis of variance

16. Evidence Boster et al. (2000) – use of statistics has a direct impact on judgments and an indirect effect on attitudes Consistency between examples and statistics increases persuasive effect Contradiction between examples and statistics causes audience members to be more likely to believe the statistical information than the examples

17. Warrant, or Reasoning Process Warrant – the rationale for moving from data to a claim – the bridge from data to claim Inductive reasoning – the synthetic process used to reason from particulars to probable conclusion Brings together or synthesizes a series of particular events, ideas, or objects and draws probable conclusions from those data Deductive reasoning – the analytic process used to move from generalities to structurally certain conclusions

18. Reasoning Types 1. Inductive reasoning – from particulars to conclusions Argument by example – examines several specific cases and assumes that if they are alike with regard to a specific characteristic, then other unknown cases will exhibit the same characteristic Argument by analogy – examines two similar cases to understand shared qualities Argument by causal correlation – two cases are examined to identify a functional correlation between them Concomitant variation Method of agreement Method of differences

19. Reasoning Types 2. Deductive reasoning – syllogism consisting of three statements and three terms Argument by causal generalization – applies an assumed causal relationship to specific cases Argument by sign – every object or idea has certain distinguishing characteristics and the presence or absence of those characteristics indicates the presence or absence of the object or idea

20. Reasoning Types InductiveDeductive Argument by exampleArgument by causal generalization Argument by analogyArgument by sign Argument by causal correlation

21. Additional Components of the Toulmin Model Qualifier – probably or certainly – statement made about the strength of an argument Rebuttal – expresses some kind of exception that would negate the argument Backing – categorical statements of fact that support the warrant

22. Toulmin’s Model of Reasoning with Additional Statements

23. Toulmin’s Model in the Media Age Aden (1994) – suggests audience members use a type of deductive reasoning, but it does not explicitly state each premise Enthymeme – a syllogism missing one of its premises

24. How is Mitt Romney making an argument with this photo opportunity?

25. Narratives Narratives – stories used as both content and form of reasoning Walter Fisher (1987) – proposes a model of persuasion in which stories take on the role of arguments Stories have substance and weight because they reflect how we see our world Narratives also function as synecdoche because they reduce complex ideas into short, easily understood arguments Humans are essentially storytellers Humans use “good reasons” when making decisions The world is a set of stories from which to choose

26. Evaluating Narratives Narrative probability – the degree to which a story hangs together Structural coherence – whether story contradicts itself Material coherence – how well story accounts for what the audience knows to be true Characterological coherence – questions reliability of the story’s characters Narrative fidelity – questions whether the story’s individual components represent accurate assertions

27. Evaluating a Persuader’s Reasoning Tests of evidence General tests of data Internal consistency – asks if data are consistent with other information from the same source External consistency – asks if data are consistent with information from other sources Relevancy – asks if data actually support the claim Tests of premises To draw correct inferences, persuaders must understand nature of audience measurement methods Persuaders must accurately gauge audience

28. Evaluating a Persuader’s Reasoning Tests of evidence Test of evidence 1. Recency – is data current 2. Source identification– is source known 3. Source ability – does source have access to information discussed and what degree of expertness does source have 4. Source willingness – examines bias, providing or interpreting information to gain some advantage 5. Content – examines evidence and its relationship to original source

29. Evaluating a Persuader’s Reasoning Tests of evidence Special tests of statistical evidence 1. Adequate sampling – sample should be sufficiently large 2. Appropriate statistical unit – use of wrong statistical measurement results in invalid data 3. Appropriate time period – compared data sets should be from similar time periods 4. Comparable units –measurement definitions of data sets should be the same

30. Evaluating a Persuader’s Reasoning Fallacies – errors in reasoning 1. Begging the question – unproven facts assumed to be true 2. Non sequitur – does not follow; unwarranted jumps to conclusion 3. Ad hominem – attacks source of statement without addressing basic reasoning behind statement 4. Ad verecundiam – uses an appeal to a higher authority, such as “because I’m your parent”

31. Evaluating a Persuader’s Reasoning Fallacies – errors in reasoning 5. Straw argument – uses a weak argument to represent other side so defeat of argument leads to defeat of other side 6. Slippery slope – assumes that once something starts, other actions cannot be stopped 7. Ad populum – because many people are doing it, the action is reasonable