A POCKET GUIDE TO PUBLIC SPEAKING 5TH EDITION Chapter 24 Constructing the Persuasive Speech

Methods of Persuasion Building credibility Using evidence Reasoning Appealing to emotions

Ethos – Credibility The audience's perception of whether a speaker is qualified to speak on a given topic. Ethos – The name used by Aristotle for what modern students of communication refer to as credibility. Factors of credibility – Competence and Character Competence: How an audience regards a speaker’s intelligence, expertise, and knowledge of the subject. Character: How an audience regards a speaker’s sincerity, trustworthiness, and concern for the well-being of the audience.

Types of Credibility Initial Credibility: The credibility of a speaker before she or he starts to speak. Derived Credibility: The credibility of a speaker produced by everything she or he says and does during the speech. Terminal Credibility: The credibility of a speaker at the end of the speech. Tips for enhancing credibility Explain your competence Establish common ground with your audience Deliver your speeches fluently, expressively, and with conviction

Pathos – Emotional Appeals Appeals that are intended to make listeners feel sad, angry, guilty, afraid, happy, proud, sympathetic, reverent, or the like. Pathos – The name used by Aristotle for what modern students of communication refer to as emotional appeal. Tips for generating emotional appeals: Use emotional language Develop vivid examples Speak with sincerity and conviction Using emotional appeals ethically: Make sure emotional appeal is appropriate to the speech topic Do not substitute emotional appeal for evidence and reasoning

Logos – Logical Appeals The name used by Aristotle for the logical appeal of a speaker. The two major elements of logos are evidence and reasoning. Evidence: Supporting materials used to prove or disprove something. Tips for using evidence Use specific evidence Use novel evidence Use evidence from credible sources Make clear the point of your evidence Reasoning: The process of drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence.

Four Types of Reasoning #1) Inductive Reasoning: Reasoning that moves from particular facts to a general conclusion. Guidelines for Reasoning from Specific Instances Avoid hasty generalizations If your evidence does not justify a sweeping conclusion, qualify your argument Reinforce your argument with statistics or testimony #2) Deductive Reasoning: Reasoning that moves from a general principle to a specific conclusion. Guidelines for Reasoning from Principle Make sure listeners will accept your general principle Provide evidence to support your minor premise

Four Types of Reasoning #3) Causal Reasoning: Reasoning that seeks to establish the relationship between causes and effects. Guidelines for Causal Reasoning Avoid the fallacy of false cause (see below for details) Do not assume that events have only a single cause #4) Reasoning by Analogy: Reasoning in which a speaker compares two similar cases and infers that what is true for the first case is also true for the second. Guidelines for Analogical Reasoning Above all, make sure the two cases being compared are essentially alike

Construct Sound Arguments Three elements to an argument Claim or proposition (states your conclusion) Based on evidence Evidence (substantiates the claim) Warrant (provides reasons evidence is valid)

Identify the Nature of Your Claims Claim of fact Declares something is true or will happen Claim of value Addresses issues of judgment Claim of policy Recommends a specific course of action

Use Convincing Evidence External evidence Examples, narratives, testimony, facts, statistics Audience’s preexisting knowledge/opinions Reaffirm listeners’ own attitudes, beliefs, values Speaker expertise Offer in conjunction with other evidence

Select Warrants Motivational warrants Authoritative warrants Appeals to audience’s needs and emotions Based on pathos Authoritative warrants Appeals to source credibility Based on ethos

Select Warrants (cont.) Substantive warrants Uses factual evidence to justify argument Based on logos Two types: warrant by cause and warrant by analogy

Counterarguments: Addressing the Other Side One-sided message Does not mention opposing claims Two-sided message Mentions opposing points of view Sometimes refutes them Generally more persuasive

Counterarguments: Addressing the Other Side (cont.) Ignoring opposing arguments might damage your credibility. You don’t need to acknowledge/refute all counterarguments. Raise/refute the most important counterclaims.

Fallacies A fallacy is an error in reasoning. The following are types of fallacies: Hasty generalization False cause Invalid analogy Red herring Ad hominem Either-or Bandwagon Slippery slope

Fallacies Hasty Generalization: A fallacy in which a speaker jumps to a general conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence. Example:“Last year alone three members of our state legislature were convicted of corruption. We can conclude, then, that all of our state’s politicians are corrupt.” False Cause: A fallacy in which a speaker mistakenly assumes that because one event follows another, the first event is the cause of the second. Example: “I'm sure the stock market will rise this year. It usually goes up when the American League wins the World Series.”

Fallacies (Continued) Invalid Analogy: An analogy in which the two cases being compared are not essentially alike. Example:“Of course Lisheng can prepare great Italian food; his Chinese cooking is fabulous.” Red Herring: A fallacy that introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion. Example:“Why should we worry about endangered animal species when thousands of people are killed in car accidents each year?” Ad Hominem: A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute. Example: “He has a number of solid proposals, but we should remember that he is not a god fearing man.”

Fallacies (Continued) Either-Or: A fallacy that forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist. Example:“The government can either create jobs or reduce services for the poor, but we can’t have both.” Bandwagon: Assumes that because something is popular, it is therefore good, correct, or desirable. Example:“The President must be correct in his approach to domestic policy; after all, polls show that 60 percent of the people support him.” Slippery Slope: Assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented. Example: “If we pass laws prohibiting assault rifles then the government will eventually pass laws prohibiting all firearms.”

Types of Logical Fallacies (cont.) Non sequitur (“does not follow”) Reasoning and conclusion are unconnected Appeal to tradition Suggests agreement because it is the way something has always been done

Strengthen Your Case with Organization Problem-solution pattern Used when discussing claims of policy Two-point pattern I. Problem (define what it is) II. Solution (offer method for overcoming problem)

Strengthen Your Case with Organization (cont.) Problem-cause-solution pattern I. Nature of the problem II. Reasons for the problem III. Proposed solution

Strengthen Your Case with Organization (cont.) Problem-cause-solution-feasibility pattern I. Nature of the problem II. Reasons for the problem III. Proposed solution IV. Evidence of solution’s feasibility

Strengthen Your Case with Organization (cont.) Monroe’s motivated sequence I. Attention Addresses listeners’ core concerns II. Need Isolates the issue to be addressed

Strengthen Your Case with Organization (cont.) Monroe’s motivated sequence (cont.) III. Satisfaction Identifies the solution IV. Visualization Provides a vision of anticipated outcomes V. Action Asks audience members to act

Strengthen Your Case with Organization (cont.) Comparative advantage pattern Used to show your proposal’s superiority Best when audience agrees solution is needed Make sure to identify familiar alternatives

Strengthen Your Case with Organization (cont.) Refutation pattern I. State the opposing position II. Describe why opposing claim is faulty III. Offer arguments/evidence for your position IV. Contrast your position with opposing claim