Presentation on theme: "THE ART OF PERSUASION. The goal of persuasive rhetoric is to establish a fact, encourage an audience to accept a belief or an opinion, or to convince."— Presentation transcript:
THE ART OF PERSUASION
The goal of persuasive rhetoric is to establish a fact, encourage an audience to accept a belief or an opinion, or to convince an audience to take a recommended course of action. Persuasive rhetoric of fact proves something true or false. (e.g., The majority of teenagers participate in some sort of extracurricular activity.) Persuasive rhetoric of belief or opinion focuses on what is right or wrong and supplies convincing information to justify the belief or opinion. (e.g., It is beneficial for teenagers to participate in extracurricular activities.) Persuasive rhetoric of action attempts to convince an audience to act in a certain way. (e.g., Teenagers who are not participating in an extracurricular activity should join an extracurricular activity.)
Key Terms Argument: a conclusion together with the premises that support it Premise: a reason offered as support for a claim Conclusion: a claim that is supported by premises Claim: a conclusion that is supported by premises Valid: an argument in which the premises genuinely support the conclusion Unsound: an argument that has at least one false premise Fallacy: an argument that relies upon faulty reasoning Booby trap: an argument that, while not a fallacy itself, might lead an inattentive reader to commit a fallacy.
Methods Ethos (i.e., ethical appeals)—gaining the audience’s respect through establishing the author’s credibility and moral character. Logos (i.e., logical appeals)—satisfying the audience’s logic and reason through providing credible, reliable, and valid proof or evidence (e.g., facts, statistics, expert opinions, and examples). Pathos (i.e., emotional appeals)—exciting the audience’s emotions through connecting with its needs and desires.
Types of Reasoning Inductive reasoning—observing individual instances and drawing conclusions based upon these observations. Deductive reasoning—using a general rule and applying it to individual instances. Syllogism—a three part deductive argument that begins with a major premise followed by a minor premise and a logical conclusion. (e.g., Birds have wings. A robin is a bird. A robin has wings.)
Rhetorical Devices Allusion Analogy Glove is to hand as wallpaper is to wall. Pearl is to oyster as student is to school. Aphorism Charged or loaded words Chiasmus “Never let a fool kiss you—or a kiss fool you” (Anonymous). “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country” (John F. Kennedy). Metaphor Parallelism Repetition Restatement Rhetorical question
Logical Fallacies Against the Person/Attacking the Person (i.e., ad hominem): A type of genetic fallacy. Affirming the Consequent/Denying the Antecedent (i.e., converse error) Incorrect: I am at least sixteen years old; therefore, I work at Jewel. Correct: I work at Jewel; therefore, I must be at least sixteen years old. Incorrect: I cannot work at Jewel; therefore, I am not sixteen years old. Correct: I am not sixteen years old; therefore, I cannot work a Jewel. Begging the Question: Assuming that a claim is true without adequate evidence and support Circular Reasoning: Repeating a claim without providing adequate evidence and support Cause-and-Effect Fallacy: Assuming that one event caused another event simply because that one event preceded the other event Either-Or Fallacy: Thinking that a complicated problem has only two possible solutions False Analogy: Making a weak or far-fetched comparison Genetic Fallacy: Accepting or rejecting an argument based on its origins rather than its merits; accepting or rejecting an argument based upon others who accept or reject it Hasty Generalization: Making a claim based upon insufficient evidence and support Non-Sequitur Reasoning: Making a conclusion that does not logically follow the premises Only-Cause: Thinking that a complex problem results from a single cause Red Herring: Pretending to establish a particular claim or conclusion but really arguing for something else; a purposeful change in topic to distract from the original topic Stereotyping: Thinking that a member of a group shares all the characteristics of that group or thinking that a group shares all the characteristics of one of its members. Undistributed Middle: A is C. B is C. Therefore, A is B. (e.g., Jose is a student. Angela is a student. Therefore, Jose is Angela.)
Booby Traps Vagueness: Lacking clarity or preciseness Equivocation (Doublespeak): Using a term or expression in two or more senses Newspaper Headline: “Marijuana Party Launches Local Campaign” A response from a publisher to an author: “Thank you for your manuscript. I shall lose no time in reading it.” Hot dogs are better than nothing. Nothing is better than steak. Therefore, hot dogs are better than steak. Suppressed Evidence: Withholding evidence that could refute or nullify an argument Appeal to Authority: Accepting the word of authorities even when their reasoning is flawed Questionable Use of Statistics Hasty Conclusion Small Sample Unrepresentative Sample
Evaluation Monty Python “Argument Monty Python “Witch’s g&NR=1 g&NR=1 Lexus Coke “No More Regrets for Old Apple Macintosh 1984 Superbowl
Application 1. Create your own syllogism. -Major premise: ______________________________________________________________ -Minor premise: ______________________________________________________________ -Logical conclusion: ___________________________________________________________ 2. Create your own chiasmus. 3. Create your own analogy. ________________________________________________________________________is to _________________________________________________________________________as ________________________________________________________________________is to __________________________________________________________________________. 4. Illustrate the logical fallacy or booby trap that you were assigned.